|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Given the ongoing threat faced by our forces and the local Afghan population, this information is critical, and in some cases 96 hours will not be long enough to gain that information from the detainee. Indeed, many insurgents are aware of the 96 hours policy and simply say nothing for that entire period. In these circumstances, the Government have concluded that Ministers should be able to authorise detention beyond 96 hours, in British detention facilities to which the ICRC has access. Each case will be thoroughly scrutinised against the relevant legal and policy considerations; we will only do this where it is legal to do so and when it is necessary to support the operation and protect our troops.
Following a ministerial decision to authorise extended detention, each case will be thoroughly and regularly monitored by in-theatre military commanders and civilian advisers. Individuals will not remain in UK detention if there is no further intelligence to be gained. We will then either release the detainee or transfer the detainee to the Afghan authorities. We have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Government of Afghanistan, requiring that individuals detained by UK forces and transferred to the Afghan authorities are treated properly. Following transfer, we continue to work with the Afghans in support of their judicial processes, maintaining close links and monitoring the application of the MOU, including through regular visits by Royal Military Police and British embassy staff to transferred detainees. The ICRC also has access to the Afghan system.
We ask our armed forces to operate in highly dangerous environments. In Afghanistan the capacity of the local agencies to enforce security and the rule of law is growing by the day, but it is vital that our forces have the authority and the capability to deal effectively with the serious threat to troops and those they are there to protect. I recognise the sensitivity of detention operations, but they are fundamental to the success of our military operations in Afghanistan, as has been proven in other operational areas.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband): The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Andy Lebrecht, UKRep, represented the UK at the Environment Council on 21 October in Luxembourg.
Member states reached agreement on the Council conclusions concerning the EU position for the forthcoming Copenhagen climate conference. Dinner discussions on 20 October saw early positioning of member states for the following day's debate and the UK was among those arguing for ambitious conclusions to send a clear signal of intent prior to the international negotiations in December. The Council agreed on a text containing three compromises relating to the long-term EU emissions-reduction target, bunker fuels and assigned amount units (AAUs). At lunch, the discussion centred on the need to engage with business and expertise as well as co-ordinating EU messaging and maintaining contact in the run-up to Copenhagen.
On the subject of ship dismantling, the Council also approved conclusions calling for the early ratification and implementation of the Hong Kong international convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships and inviting the Commission to consider EU legislation in this area.
A policy debate reviewing the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directives highlighted different views among member states regarding the scope of the directives. The UK raised concerns about moving to an "open" scope for both directives without proper assessment of the impacts of such a move and this was supported by several other member states. The presidency concluded that most delegations were open to separate scopes for RoHS but that the scope of WEEE need further reflection.
Ministers also discussed several AOB items. A number of member states highlighted the problem of forest fires. In response to concerns about the "cocktail" effect of mixtures of chemicals, the presidency confirmed they would present conclusions to the December Environment Council. Several delegations shared their concerns about "plastic soup"-plastic marine debris floating in the oceans.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr. David Hanson): On April 27 the Home Office published a consultation, "Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment", which set out the importance of communications data in helping to protect and safeguard the public; how the rapidly changing communications environment means the existing capability of the police, the security and intelligence agencies and other public authorities is declining and why change is necessary. Today I am publishing the Summary and Responses submitted as part of this consultation exercise.
Used in the right way, and subject to important safeguards to protect individuals' right to privacy, communications data can play a critical role in keeping all of us safe. It enables investigators to identify suspects and their associates; provides vital clues in solving life-threatening situations such as kidnaps, and evidence supporting alibis and prosecutions; supports lawful interception of communications; and assists the emergency services to help or locate vulnerable people. It is also critical to safeguarding our national security, and in particular to countering the terrorist threat.
The consultation paper sought views on options for maintaining our vital communications data capabilities to protect the public against a background of rapid
technological change. It rejected options for both a single database holding all communications data and a "do nothing" option. Instead it proposed a "middle way" approach involving two main elements for which new legislation would be required. These elements were:
i) provisions to impose obligations on CSPs relating to the collection and retention of specified communications data which cross their networks (including third party and other data which are not currently retained for business purposes or under existing legislation); and
ii) provisions to impose obligations on CSPs to organise the communications data they retain in a specified way enabling specific lawful requests for data by public authorities to be processed efficiently and effectively.
The Home Office received 221 responses to the consultation exercise. As explained in the Summary and Responses, the Government's rejection of a central database for all communications data was welcomed. There was also recognition of the importance of communications data and agreement that the capability of communications data to protect the public should be maintained.
As we develop the approach proposed in the consultation in the light of the responses received, we will continue to work closely with communications service providers in order to minimise as far as possible any impact on them. We will also ensure that any new proposals will include strong safeguards to minimise the potential for abuse and to ensure the security and integrity of the data.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael Wills): I am today publishing a consultation paper entitled "Civil Monetary Penalties, Setting the Maximum Penalty". The paper explains the Government's proposal to set the maximum penalty for civil monetary penalties at £500,000. Civil monetary penalties, as set out under sections 55A-E of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) would be imposed by the Information Commissioner for serious breaches of the data protection principles.
The Government are particularly seeking views from data controllers on the level of the proposed penalty, but responses to the consultation are welcome from anyone with an interest. The Government's proposal to introduce civil monetary penalties reflects the importance that Government place on safeguarding personal data effectively and processing them responsibly and lawfully. The proposals will potentially affect data controllers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so this consultation is UK-wide.
Before imposing any civil monetary penalties the Information Commissioner has a statutory obligation to publish detailed guidance setting out the criteria it will use when imposing a civil monetary penalty, and circumstances it will take into consideration.
The introduction of civil monetary penalties should contribute to increased compliance with the data protection principles and greater confidence for data subjects that their information is being handled correctly.
Copies of the consultation paper and associated impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department's website at: www.justice. gov.uk
In my written ministerial statement of 13 July 2009, Official Report, column 4WS stated that we had equipped all prisons with a Body Orifice Security Scanner (BOSS) chair and that the roll-out was completed in May. It has now been brought to my attention that five out the 128 BOSS chairs were not delivered on time and I wish to update the House. All chairs have now been delivered; one in June, three in July and one in September. The relevant Prison Service Instruction (PSI) mandates that governors must ensure that use of the BOSS is incorporated into local security strategies in the light of local operational priorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport, Lord Adonis, has made the following ministerial statement:
The Department for Transport is launching today the public consultation on a draft "National Policy Statement for Ports" in England and Wales. I am laying the draft before the House and placing copies of the consultation in the House Library.
This national policy statement forms a key element of the Government's programme to deliver the reforms to the planning system included in last year's Planning Act. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has announced in the other place, the Government are also today publishing for consultation a series of national policy statements for energy infrastructure.
The aim of the reforms to the planning system set out in the Planning Act is to make the planning system more responsive to challenges such as climate change, more streamlined, efficient and predictable, and more transparent and accountable with full and fair opportunities for public consultation and community engagement.
The draft "National Policy Statement for Ports" sets out the broad need for ports capacity looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, taking account in particular of our forecasts of port freight demand and the regional and local economic benefits of port activity. It also restates the Government's long-standing policy that this need can be best met by an efficient and competitive ports industry operating in a free-market environment. It further sets out, in the context of the Government's overall objectives for sustainable development, including mitigating and adapting to climate change and the achievement of good design, how the
various potential adverse impacts of port development should be addressed by applicants with a view to avoiding, mitigating and where necessary compensating for such impacts. It notes how ports can support the development of low-carbon energy sources and a low-carbon economy. And it provides guidance about how the Infrastructure Planning Commission must weight any residual impacts in considering applications for nationally significant port developments, including in setting requirements and agreeing obligations for consented developments.
The Department is also publishing, in parallel, its Appraisal of Sustainability of the draft national policy statement, incorporating a strategic environmental assessment, as well as an impact assessment and an assessment of the NPS under the habitats and wild birds directives and regulations. Consultees will be able to comment on these if they wish. I am placing copies of the main Appraisal of Sustainability in the House Library.
The public consultation being launched today invites views on the extent to which this national policy statement provides a suitable framework for the Infrastructure Planning Commission in making decisions about consents for new port developments. Their decisions will be based primarily on national policy statements, so it is all the more important that people have a full opportunity to comment on the detailed drafting. The consultation closes on 15 February but I encourage people to respond earlier where possible in order to allow their comments to be taken into account in parliamentary scrutiny of the policy statement. Consultees are also invited to participate in consultation events to be organised by my Department in London, Leeds and Cardiff. The consultation is at: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/portsnps.
Section 9(7) of the Planning Act requires the Secretary of State to stipulate the "relevant period" in which, if either House makes a resolution or a Committee of either House makes recommendations with regard to the proposal to designate an NPS, he will lay a statement in response. I hereby stipulate the relevant period as that beginning today and ending on 6 May 2010.
The House may wish to be aware that the Department for Transport is continuing to work up for consultation a draft NPS for England's strategic road and rail networks. The advice I have commissioned from High Speed 2 on high speed rail services is likely to be a significant factor in determining future policy. I have now concluded that it would be appropriate to publish this NPS early next year, having considered the HS2 report. In addition, I still expect to publish a draft NPS for airports by 2011.
The Minister for Pensions and the Ageing Society (Angela Eagle): As hon. Members are aware some of the administrative resource costs of the pensions regulator (tPR), the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), the Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) and the pensions ombudsman (PO) are recovered through levies raised on pension schemes. The rates for these levies are set in regulations.
The PPF administration levy recovers the administration costs of the board of the PPF only in relation to its PPF activities. Any administration costs in relation to PPF's financial assistance scheme responsibilities are funded separately and there is no cross-subsidy from the PPF levy.
The general levy provides for some of the administration costs of tPR and those of TPAS and the PO. Activities the regulator is undertaking in relation to the employer compliance regime are not met from the general levy and are funded separately. There is no cross-subsidy between the two funding sources.