Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the compatibility of the advice of the former Interception of Communications Commissioner, The Rt Hon Sir Anthony May, at paragraph 2.4 of his report of March 2015 with the European Court of Justice’s judgement in case C-362/14, <i>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</i>.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
National security is a matter solely for Member States. The UK already has one of the strongest frameworks for the oversight of investigatory powers in the world. Building on the independent reports by David Anderson QC, the Royal United Services Institute and the Intelligence and Security Committee, the upcoming Investigatory Powers Bill will update the legal framework governing investigatory powers to ensure it is modern, transparent, fit for purpose and respects both privacy and security. It will ensure consistent, effective statutory safeguards and enhance our already robust oversight system. It will replace the existing statutory scheme with one that is comprehensive and comprehensible, bringing together all of the powers available to the state to access communications in a transparent way.Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the indiscriminate mass surveillance identified in the European Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-362/14, <i>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</i> did not apply to Parliament, Buckingham Palace, the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The European Court of Justice did not make any findings of fact in relation to alleged ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’.
The UK agencies do not conduct ‘mass surveillance’. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), an independent court, has looked in detail at this. Like the Interception Commissioner, the IPT made clear that Government Communications Headquarters is not conducting ‘mass surveillance’. Furthermore, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament conducted a comprehensive review of Privacy and Security, examining in detail the work of the intelligence agencies, and published its report on 12 March 2015. It said: “our Inquiry has shown that the Agencies do not have the legal authority, the resources, the technical capability, or the desire to intercept the communications of British citizens, or of the internet as a whole.”
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to end the indiscriminate mass surveillance identified in the European Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-362/14, <i>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</i>.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The European Court of Justice did not make any findings of fact in relation to alleged ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’. The UK agencies do not conduct ‘mass surveillance’. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), an independent court, has looked in detail at this. Like the Interception Commissioner, the IPT made clear that Government Communications Headquarters is not conducting ‘mass surveillance’. Furthermore, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament conducted a comprehensive review of Privacy and Security, examining in detail the work of the intelligence agencies, and published its report on 12 March 2015. It said: “our Inquiry has shown that the Agencies do not have the legal authority, the resources, the technical capability, or the desire to intercept the communications of British citizens, or of the internet as a whole.”
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the status of the PRISM programme in the United States following the European Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-362/14, <i>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</i>.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The status of the PRISM surveillance programme in the US is a matter for the US authorities.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they participate in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and, if so, whether participating has changed their policies in any way.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The UK was a founder member of the then Committee for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE - later renamed Organisation - OSCE in 1994) when it was created in 1975, and has been an active participating State throughout its existence.
The OSCE is, and continues to be, an important means of pursuing a range of UK policy priorities, to promote UK values on human rights and democracy, our interests in conventional arms control, along with wider European security issues and conflict prevention.
The UK plays an influential role in the OSCE. We work to defend OSCE commitments and principles, the OSCE institutions, and challenge failure to respect obligations.
The OSCE oversees a number of commitments on how participating States have agreed to behave towards each other and towards their citizens. Though these norms are regularly breached, their existence provides an important standard against which the people of the participating States can attempt to hold their leaders accountable.
Ongoing OSCE discussion of opportunities and challenges to the future of European security also contribute to UK policy objectives. The OSCE remains the main multilateral forum that brings together 57 countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, including Russia, the United States and EU member states, on a range of key security issues and is home to a number of interlocking instruments which form the basis for conventional arms control across the Euro-Atlantic area.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the past year in discussions with the government of Libya about compensation for people in Northern Ireland in respect of shipments of arms and explosives from that country to the IRA.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I refer the noble Lord to my answer of 17 December 2014 (HL3464). There have been no developments in the interim.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current state of discussions with the relevant authority in Syria concerning compensation for those in Northern Ireland who were injured as a result of explosives and guns that were supplied to the IRA.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
We have been discussing this matter with the Libyan authorities, not the Syrian government. While we do not intend to negotiate a compensation settlement with the Libyan authorities, once stability returns, and our Embassy re-opens, we will again encourage the Libyans to engage with UK victims seeking redress, including those seeking compensation and their legal representatives. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), has said that he is committed to doing this and has asked the National Security Advisor to lead cross-government efforts to engage the Libyans on reconciliation initiatives. The Government will also continue to promote broad and lasting reconciliation between Libya and affected UK communities.Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what effect the debt payable to the government of the United States as a result of the First World War has on their foreign policy.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
There has been no effect on the UK's foreign policy agenda as a result of the debt owed to the Government of the United States deriving from the First World War.Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their definition of a war crime.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The definition of a war crime is set out in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, section 50 and Schedule 8 (which sets out the terms of Article 8.2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court).
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their definition of a nation.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The normal criteria for recognition of a nation or state are set out in the Written Answer by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 16 November 1989, House of Commons Hansard Official Report, Column 494, noted below for ease of reference:
“The normal criteria that we apply for recognition as a state are that it should have, and seem likely to continue to have, a clearly defined territory with a population, a Government who are able of themselves to exercise effective control of that territory, and independence in their external relations. Other factors, including some United Nations resolutions, may also be relevant.”