Tag: Earl Attlee

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the implications of the police indicating to a person being interviewed under caution that no further action will be taken due to insufficient, or a lack of, evidence.

Lord Keen of Elie

The implications in such circumstances are detailed in a written answer on 31 March 1993 by the then Attorney General (Sir Nicholas Lyell), as outlined below.

The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

(1) rare cases where reconsiderations of the original decision show that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

(2) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted. (Official Report, Col’s 200-201).

Following this written answer and further written ministerial statements, the Crown Prosecution Service has produced guidance for prosecutors to follow concerning the exercise of the CPS discretion to institute, reinstitute or continue proceedings after a suspect has been informed by the police or CPS of a decision not to prosecute. The above mentioned Written Statements are detailed below and are published in the Official Report.

WMS – Crown Prosecutors Code – 22 February 2010. Column WS64, Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

WMS – Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision (CPS Guidance) – 31 October 2012, Col 15WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

WMS – Victim’s Right to Review – 5 June 2013, Col 99WS, Rt. Hon Dominic Grieve

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-01-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have the power or ability to refer Operation Midland to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Lord Bates

The Home Office is unable to refer matters to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and cannot comment on individual cases which are a matter for individual forces.

Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 places a duty on the appropriate authority to refer a matter to the IPCC under certain prescribed circumstances. The appropriate authority would usually be the chief constable or, where the complaint or conduct matter relates to a chief officer, the local policing body for the force in question.

The appropriate authority may also refer a complaint to the IPCC if it considers it appropriate to do so because of the gravity of the subject-matter or there are any exceptional circumstances involved. Where the appropriate authority is the chief constable and a case is not referred, the local policing body for the force may refer the matter to the Commission on the same grounds. The IPCC can, at any time, require the appropriate authority to refer a matter to it for consideration.

As part of the measures to strengthen the powers of the IPCC in the forthcoming Policing and Crime Bill, the IPCC will in future have the power to investigate allegations of police misconduct, death or serious injury and complaints against the police without first awaiting or requiring a referral from a force.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the UK competition authorities have made an assessment of the UK market in printer cartridges; and if so, what conclusions were reached.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) carried out a market study in 2001 on consumer IT goods and services, including the printer cartridge market. It noted that consumers may find it difficult to identify which printer manufacturer had the cheapest price overall – this included the upfront price of the printer and the price of cartridges over the life of the machine. The OFT worked with the industry to introduce a labelling scheme which allowed consumers to identify how many pages they could expect to print with a cartridge. This allows consumers to consider both the purchase price and the running costs of the printer.

The Competition and Markets Authority took over the competition functions of the OFT in 2014.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government approximately how many non-commissioned female members of the armed forces have retired from regular service with a trade that would normally require an HGV licence in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

Earl Howe

This information is not held in the format requested.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been spent by them or Trinity House on the E-LORAN navigation system in each of the last 10 years.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Expenditure on the eLoran navigation system by the Trinity House Research and Radio Navigation department for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

	Exp (£000)	Income (£000)	Net Exp (£000)
07/08	194	-188	7
08/09	256	0	256
09/10	411	-234	176
10/11	606	-141	466
11/12	708	-200	508
12/13	573	-200	373
13/14	937	-200	737
14/15	1,001	-100	901
15/16	576	-100	476
Total	5,263	-1,363	3,900

The vast majority of funding for Trinity House, and therefore the R&RNAV department, is met by the General Lighthouse Fund.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patents have been applied for by the Ministry of Defence or its agencies in the last 10 years.

Earl Howe

The Ministry of Defence and its agencies filed 875 patent applications from 2006 to 2016. This includes patent applications filed in both the UK and abroad.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the monetary value of the relevant information that a franchising authority may obtain from local bus operators under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL].

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Government has made no assessment of the monetary value of the information that a local authority can obtain under Clause 5. The Government understands that some of the information will be commercially sensitive and it is therefore imperative that authorities treat it with care. The information can be used only in connection with the franchising scheme.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis local authorities are to be given powers under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL] to demand relevant information from bus operators, particularly in cases where such relevant information is market-sensitive and providing it to any other party might be contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Government wants to ensure that authorities considering franchising can access the information they need to accurately assess their franchising scheme. This will help to ensure that informed decisions can be made on the basis of robust evidence and analysis.

We recognise that some of the information provided by operators will be commercially sensitive. Franchising authorities will need to treat this information with care, and will be able to refuse to release such information by way of the relevant Freedom of Information exemptions. The Bill also makes clear that the information acquired by the franchising authority must only be used in connection with its franchising functions, and not for other purposes.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-06-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether draft regulations will be made available under Clause 5 of the Bus Services Bill [HL] relating to the provision of relevant information that a franchising authority may obtain from local bus operators, and if so, when.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Government will work closely with both local authority stakeholders and bus operators to develop sensible proposals that both meet the needs of franchising authorities and do not place unnecessary burdens on local bus operators.

Policy discussions with key stakeholders were started in May, and policy scoping notes, setting out the policy intent of each of the regulations, were circulated to Noble Peers on 15th June. Our intention is to continue to engage with bus operators and local authorities to produce draft regulations for consultation in the autumn.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2016-09-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their policy that the Secretary of State for Transport shall decline to grant a Vehicle Special Order under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for the purpose of carrying crane ballast weights, to an operator which does not have a green Operator Compliance Risk Score from the DVSA; and if not, whether they will review that policy.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The DVSA’s Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) is a scheme that supports DVSA’s compliance monitoring for operators. In contrast Vehicle Special Orders in relation to the Special Types General Order (STGO) for abnormal loads are granted by the Secretary of State for Transport through Highways England.

These two schemes are not connected or interdependent. The Compliance Risk Score does not form any part of the process for granting an application for a Vehicle Special Order. Both schemes are designed with specific requirements. We have no plans to change the process to make either scheme conditional on the other.