Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Ministry of Justice last reviewed the provisions of the Registration of Burials Act 1864 under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The Ministry of Justice does not exercise any functions under the provisions of the Registration of Burials Act 1864 and has not therefore undertaken such a review. Should the Government amend the Act in the future, however, it would have to take account of the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many court cases have been brought by parochial church councils to recover chancel repair liability since the Aston Cantlow judgment by the House of Lords in 2003.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The decision of the House of Lords in the case of Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v. Wallbank and another [2003] UKHL 37 confirmed that chancel repair liability was a valid and enforceable property right. Before 13 October 2013 the liability did not have to be entered on the land register to bind buyers of registered land. Now buyers can be certain whether a property may be subject to the liability before they buy, helping them to make informed decisions.
Information as to the number of cases parochial church councils have brought since June 2003 to recover chancel repair liability is not available and could only be obtained from court records at disproportionate expense. The Government is however aware that not all parochial church councils decided to register their entitlement to the benefit of the liability.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what reports the Chief Inspector of Prisons has received about deaths in custody in Bahrain in the course of his or his staff’s dealings with that country; and, in particular, whether he has received any reports about the death of Hassan Majeed al-Sheikh in Jaw prison on 6 November.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) conducts no inspections in Bahrain itself and receives no privileged information about custodial facilities. HMIP is however engaged in a project to help establish and promote independent human rights based inspection of Bahraini custodial facilities. This is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsored project and has been developed in liaison with international human rights bodies. A new Bahraini prisoner and detainee rights commission (PDRC) has been formed and HMIP has provided training to its staff in both the UK and Bahrain and has hosted visits from its staff on inspections in the UK. The PDRC is in the early stages of its work. Most places of custody, including Jaw Prison, have not yet been inspected. HMIP has no information about the death of Hassan Majeed al-Sheikh other than what has been reported in the media.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken or propose to take to remedy the shortcomings identified by the United Nations Committee Against Torture in the United Kingdom’s compliance with the United Nations Convention against Torture in May 2013 in relation to (1) the alleged torture of Tamil returnees from the United Kingdom, (2) the lack of accountability in respect of allegations of United Kingdom complicity in torture abroad, (3) the detention of torture survivors in the Detained Fast Track System, (4) the lowering of the evidential threshold before a suspected torture survivor is deemed unsuitable for the Detained Fast Track System, (5) the application of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules, (6) the exemption in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which provides a defence of lawful authority, justification or excuse to a charge of official intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, and (7) its concerns about section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which provides immunity to intelligence officers once a warrant has been signed by a government minister giving them lawful authority.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The UK Government does not engage in torture, or solicit, encourage or condone its use, and works closely with its international partners to prevent torture occurring anywhere in the world. As requested by the Committee Against Torture, the UK Government submitted, on 31 May 2014, follow up information (available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/human-rights/cat-300520140-uk-follow-up-information.pdf) on issues raised by the Committee during the examination of the UK in May 2013. At the Committee’s request, the UK Government will provide its 6th periodic report under the Convention Against Torture, addressing the Committee’s list of issues, in May 2017.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will allow the right of individual petition under Article 22 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.
Answered by Lord Faulks
According to the United Nations’ website (http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx - accessed on 23 July 2014) on the ratification status of the Convention, 65 States (out of 155 States Parties to the Convention) accepted the right of individual petition under Article 22; this suggests that 90 States, listed on the website, have not yet done so. The UK is committed to a strong and effective international human rights system and we are state party to a number of international human rights treaties including the UN Convention Against Torture. The UK Government however remains to be convinced of the added practical value to people in the UK of rights of individual petitions to the UN, considering that the UK has strong and effective laws under which individuals may seek remedies in the courts or in tribunals if they feel that their rights have been breached. To date, the UK's experience under the two optional protocols it has ratified (in 2004 to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and in 2009 to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) has not provided sufficient empirical evidence to establish the practical benefits of becoming a State Party to a further individual petition mechanism to the UN.
Asked by: Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which member states other than the United Kingdom which have ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment have failed to declare acceptance of the right of individual petition under Article 22 of the Convention.
Answered by Lord Faulks
According to the United Nations’ website (http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx - accessed on 23 July 2014) on the ratification status of the Convention, 65 States (out of 155 States Parties to the Convention) accepted the right of individual petition under Article 22; this suggests that 90 States, listed on the website, have not yet done so. The UK is committed to a strong and effective international human rights system and we are state party to a number of international human rights treaties including the UN Convention Against Torture. The UK Government however remains to be convinced of the added practical value to people in the UK of rights of individual petitions to the UN, considering that the UK has strong and effective laws under which individuals may seek remedies in the courts or in tribunals if they feel that their rights have been breached. To date, the UK's experience under the two optional protocols it has ratified (in 2004 to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and in 2009 to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) has not provided sufficient empirical evidence to establish the practical benefits of becoming a State Party to a further individual petition mechanism to the UN.