1-20 of 447 results for subject:Secrecy
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.939 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Secrecy
- We searched for
- subject_t:Secrecy OR subject_ses:92938
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the practice of journalists offering ministers a "right of reply" to a story by email correspondence; whether such correspondence is considered to be confidential; and, if so, whether such confidentiality is in the public interest.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the practice of journalists offering ministers a "right of reply" to a story by email correspondence; whether such correspondence is considered to be confidential; and, if so, whether such confidentiality is in the public interest.
It is not for the government to comment on the journalistic practice of offering a right of reply, and the confidentiality of such correspondence.
Examination of witnesses.
Examination of witnesses.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions have to apply in order to prevent the release of a Service Inquiry report to the general public.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions have to apply in order to prevent the release of a Service Inquiry report to the general public.
The publication of Service Inquiry reports is considered on a case by case basis. The arrangements are set out in Chapter seven of Joint Service Publication 832 ('Guide to Service Inquiries'). A copy of that document can be found at
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/service-inquiry-si
along with a list of published reports of Service Inquiries, Boards of Inquiry, and Military Aircraft Accident Summaries.
(4) how many cases of the Court of Protection were prohibited from being reported in each year since May 2005.
[164562]
Robert Flello:
(4) how many cases of the Court of Protection were prohibited from being reported in each year since May 2005.
[164562]
Robert Flello:
The Court of Protection is a unique court dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in society. Its specialist judges are called on to make decisions in cases where there is a concern a person may not have the mental capacity to act in their own interests—for
example about their property, financial affairs, healthcare or personal welfare. The Court of Protection is a Superior Court of Record and takes its place with other civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, but is separate from the county court and High Court and has its own set of rules.
The Ministry of Justice is not aware of any cases in the Court of Protection that have been subject to judicial review since the court was created on 1 October 2007. At the present time, data between the Court of Protection and other courts, including the Court of Appeal are not linked and I am therefore unable to provide information on the numbers of appealed cases and the outcomes with any degree of accuracy. We are investigating how this can be resolved.
The Court of Protection database does not hold a record of the outcomes of these appeals.
Since October 2007, the court has made an order for imprisonment in one case. That related to contempt. The court has no powers to confiscate a defendant's possessions.
The Court of Protection generally sits in private, but this is to reflect the sensitive and personal, and, in particular, the financial nature of the issues being discussed. It is also because the person who is the subject of the proceedings may become vulnerable if identified. However, the court does have a wide discretion to: authorise the publication of information about private hearings; authorise persons, including the media, to attend a private hearing; exclude persons from attending a hearing and otherwise restrict the publication of information about a hearing—the court will decide what restriction to impose on a case by case basis. The court does not record the detail of reporting restrictions. To research all cases where hearings have been held since October 2007 would be a disproportionate cost.
The Government agrees there is a need for greater openness in the Court of Protection and that it is important to make progress so as to ensure public confidence. We acknowledge that there is a public perception and concern that the court is unjustifiably secret and this cannot be allowed to continue.
The question of how to open up the Court of Protection further and balance access with proper controls to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information which might be harmful to parties in the proceedings if released (including vulnerable children and adults) remains a difficult and controversial issue, which requires careful and serious consideration.
The President of the Court of Protection is currently considering how progress can be made through changes to Rules of Court, practice directions and guidance to further the public understanding of proceedings, while respecting the right to privacy of vulnerable individuals.
My Lords, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have learnt something that I had not expected to this afternoon, which is that as a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I now need to see the latest James Bond film. Also as a former chair of...
My Lords, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have learnt something that I had not expected to this afternoon, which is that as a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I now need to see the latest James Bond film. Also as a former chair of...
My Lords, the core work of the committee upon which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and I have the honour to represent your Lordships’ House covers an important area of national interest, not least because of the amount of public money that the agencies consume each year, something...
My Lords, the core work of the committee upon which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and I have the honour to represent your Lordships’ House covers an important area of national interest, not least because of the amount of public money that the agencies consume each year, something...
My Lords, when I went to see the latest Bond film, “Skyfall”, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House in the audience. I think we both found that the least credible part of the film, which was a high hurdle, of course, was the active executive role taken by...
My Lords, when I went to see the latest Bond film, “Skyfall”, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House in the audience. I think we both found that the least credible part of the film, which was a high hurdle, of course, was the active executive role taken by...
My Lords, it has been a privilege to serve for a second year as one of your Lordships’ two representatives on the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, along with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian.
The intelligence and security agencies of the state continue to have a high profile in government. New...
My Lords, it has been a privilege to serve for a second year as one of your Lordships’ two representatives on the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, along with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian.
The intelligence and security agencies of the state continue to have a high profile in government. New...
My Lords, I add my thanks to the intelligence community for keeping us safe throughout our stellar Olympic summer. As a historian, I hope the Cabinet Office has commissioned an internal study of how it was done, for two reasons: first, to serve as what Whitehall used to call in...
My Lords, I add my thanks to the intelligence community for keeping us safe throughout our stellar Olympic summer. As a historian, I hope the Cabinet Office has commissioned an internal study of how it was done, for two reasons: first, to serve as what Whitehall used to call in...
My Lords, this is a welcome opportunity to debate this report today. Like the report, the debate has been both fascinating and very illuminating. As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said at the start of his comments, it is right that we should thank the intelligence and security services for...
My Lords, this is a welcome opportunity to debate this report today. Like the report, the debate has been both fascinating and very illuminating. As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said at the start of his comments, it is right that we should thank the intelligence and security services for...
My Lords, I am sorry to throw the furniture around; it is not a response to what has been a really helpful debate. It has been extremely well informed, as one would expect from the speakers we have had the privilege of listening to.
Before I turn to the points raised...
My Lords, I am sorry to throw the furniture around; it is not a response to what has been a really helpful debate. It has been extremely well informed, as one would expect from the speakers we have had the privilege of listening to.
Before I turn to the points raised...
My Lords, I can and will be brief. I just want to make a number of comments in relation to what I thought was a very sensible and insightful debate. The remarks made today have reflected the essentially non-partisan nature of the ISC, which is one of its great strengths....
My Lords, I can and will be brief. I just want to make a number of comments in relation to what I thought was a very sensible and insightful debate. The remarks made today have reflected the essentially non-partisan nature of the ISC, which is one of its great strengths....
Lords debate on motion to take note of the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2011-12. Agreed to on question.
Lords debate on motion to take note of the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2011-12. Agreed to on question.
At the Liaison Committee yesterday the Prime Minister began by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to make the Justice and Security Bill acceptable
on secret courts, but he ended the session by appearing to say that he would not accept those amendments. Could he clarify which one it is?
At the Liaison Committee yesterday the Prime Minister began by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to make the Justice and Security Bill acceptable
on secret courts, but he ended the session by appearing to say that he would not accept those amendments. Could he clarify which one it is?
What I said very clearly to the Committee yesterday is that we want the Bill to pass through Parliament, having listened to the Joint Committee and to all the excellent points made in the House of Lords. I am sure we will be listening even more carefully in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching off the shadow Chancellor the disease of not being able to keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds. We will listen carefully to the amendments. The fundamental choice is to make sure that those proceedings are available to judges, and it is judges who should make the decision.
What I said very clearly to the Committee yesterday is that we want the Bill to pass through Parliament, having listened to the Joint Committee and to all the excellent points made in the House of Lords. I am sure we will be listening even more carefully in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching off the shadow Chancellor the disease of not being able to keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds. We will listen carefully to the amendments. The fundamental choice is to make sure that those proceedings are available to judges, and it is judges who should make the decision.
What I said very clearly to the Committee yesterday is that we want the Bill to pass through Parliament, having listened to the Joint Committee and to all the excellent points made in the House of Lords. I am sure we will be listening even more carefully in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching off the shadow Chancellor the disease of not being able to keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds. We will listen carefully to the amendments. The fundamental choice is to make sure that those proceedings are available to judges, and it is judges who should make the decision.
At the Liaison Committee yesterday the Prime Minister began by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to make the Justice and Security Bill acceptable
on secret courts, but he ended the session by appearing to say that he would not accept those amendments. Could he clarify which one it is?
Moved by
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
31: Before Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Application for public interest immunity
(1) In any relevant civil proceedings in which the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) a party to the proceedings, whether or not the Secretary of State, would be required to disclose material in...
Moved by
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
31: Before Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Application for public interest immunity
(1) In any relevant civil proceedings in which the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) a party to the proceedings, whether or not the Secretary of State, would be required to disclose material in...
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 32 and 44. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for putting his name to these amendments.
We come now to Part 2 of the Bill, which is concerned with closed material procedures. They are a new development in UK civil...
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 32 and 44. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for putting his name to these amendments.
We come now to Part 2 of the Bill, which is concerned with closed material procedures. They are a new development in UK civil...
My Lords, Amendments 36 to 38, 40 and 47 to 49 are in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Amendment 50 has the same signatories save that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of...
My Lords, Amendments 36 to 38, 40 and 47 to 49 are in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Amendment 50 has the same signatories save that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of...
My Lords, I thought it might help the House to take the unusual step of speaking early in the debate on behalf of the Opposition in order to make our position clear in relation to the amendments in this group, in particular those that emanate from the report of the...
My Lords, I thought it might help the House to take the unusual step of speaking early in the debate on behalf of the Opposition in order to make our position clear in relation to the amendments in this group, in particular those that emanate from the report of the...
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I intend to make only one speech, if I can get away with that, and to make it as brief as I can.
The issues raised in this debate are of profound importance to the rule of...
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I intend to make only one speech, if I can get away with that, and to make it as brief as I can.
The issues raised in this debate are of profound importance to the rule of...