|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to protect travelling sports teams from potential attacks similar to the one recently made on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. [HL2583]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): The Government's refreshed counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST, published in March, aims to reduce the risk of international terrorism to the UK and our interests overseas, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. This includes sports teams in the UK and those travelling overseas.
The police have long-standing arrangements in place to work closely with sports organisations to ensure that security requirements are adequately considered. Security at sporting events is kept under constant review as a matter of course based on assessment of risk, which takes into account both threat and vulnerability. There are well established and exercised plans in place to deal with a wide range of potential situations. The Government's long-standing policy is not to comment on specific protective security measures as to do so could compromise any arrangements that are in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The costs of responding to the swine flu outbreak cannot be fully evaluated, or accurately predicted, at this time.
Lord Darzi of Denham: At the outset of the outbreak, World Health Organisation (WHO) officials were referring to the new virus strain as swine flu. On 30 April 2009 the WHO decided to refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A (H1N1). Following this WHO decision, HM Government considered the question of the naming of swine flu, and decided to continue to use the term swine flu in order not to confuse the public in our communications.
We have also produced a leaflet entitled Important information about swine flu. This contains important information about this flu outbreak and started going out to all United Kingdom households on 5 May. We expect everyone to receive their leaflet by 19 May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Home Office does not make the fact of the existence of an authorisation in any particular area public while it is running or for how long a particular force has had an authorisation.
18 May 2009 : Column WA280
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Home Office does not make the fact of the existence of an authorisation in any particular area public while it is running or for how long a particular force has had an authorisation. This includes the geographical extent of each of the authorisations. It is the responsibility of an ACPO rank officer in the relevant police forces to justify reasons for an authorisation to cover a whole force area or a designated area. It is open to the chief officer of the relevant police force to share this information where they think it is appropriate.
Lord West of Spithead: Under Section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 a report on the operation of the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 must be laid before both Houses of Parliament every 12 months.
The reviews of and reports on these Acts are carried out by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC in his role as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and this includes scrutiny of Section 44 authorisations which he conducts twice yearly. The only legal challenge to a Section 44 authorisation was in R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis  UKHL 12. The challenge was rejected by the House of Lords.
Lord West of Spithead: A community impact assessment is completed by all forces prior to a Section 44 authorisation being confirmed. Forces need to consider whether it is appropriate to consult representatives of the local community in advance of authorising the powers. However, any decision not to consult with the community, due to operational reasons, should be fully explained and justified by the authorising officer.
|Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|