Tag: Earl Attlee

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) SO1, and (2) SO2, staff appointments are established at the British Army Headquarters, and of those, how many are gapped or unfilled, excluding short handover periods.

    Earl Howe

    Army HQ in Andover is currently undergoing reorganisation. There are presently 221 SO1 and 375 SO2 established posts in Andover, but this includes elements of the Army that are not part of Army HQ, including Commander Field Army and parts of Personnel Support Command. Of these, seven SO1 and 13 SO2 posts are gapped. The final structure of Army HQ under the Army Command Review is not expected to be finalised until April 2016 at the earliest.

  • Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Earl Attlee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    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

  • Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 October (HL2256), why 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, relocated from the Army Reserve Centre at Redhill to the one at Croydon, in the light of the fact that the related infrastructure developments had not progressed past the initial assessment phase.

    Earl Howe

    The relocation of 150 Company from Redhill to Croydon was part of the redesign of the Army Reserve as part of Future Reserves 2020 and Army 2020. In this case the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers were realigned to better integrate the Reserve component with their Regular Army partners. It also sought to maximise the potential for future recruitment, which in some cases necessitated the relocation of smaller units and sub-units.

    While it was recognised that the infrastructure of the Croydon Army Reserve Centre required some improvement, it was deemed no worse than that at Redhill Army Reserve Centre. Therefore, an early move was agreed to realise the wider benefit of an increased recruiting footprint, thus ensuring that 103 Battalion REME could grow in strength and maintain the critical mass necessary for effective training and therefore operational capability

  • Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the enhancements originally planned in order to accommodate heavy recovery vehicles for the Army Reserve Centre at Mitcham Road, Croydon, which have been implemented, and which have been deferred, cancelled, postponed, or otherwise not implemented.

    Earl Howe

    Infrastructure developments related to the relocation of 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, to the Army Reserve Centre in Croydon have not progressed past the initial assessment phase. Therefore, no detailed plans have been developed nor funds allocated. The unit continues to deliver its required outputs including training with heavy recovery vehicles.

  • Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Earl Attlee – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2015-10-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much expenditure this financial year has been saved or postponed by not implementing enhancements originally planned in order to accommodate heavy recovery vehicles for the Army Reserve Centre at Mitcham Road, Croydon.

    Earl Howe

    Infrastructure developments related to the relocation of 150 Recovery Company, part of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, to the Army Reserve Centre in Croydon have not progressed past the initial assessment phase. Therefore, no detailed plans have been developed nor funds allocated. The unit continues to deliver its required outputs including training with heavy recovery vehicles.

  • Earl Attlee – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Earl Attlee – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Attlee on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the issue of online third parties acting as middlemen between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and driving licence applicants.

    Baroness Kramer

    The Government is taking decisive steps against such websites.

    Officials are working with various government organisations and search engine providers to raise awareness and ensure appropriate enforcement action is taken. Ministers recently met with Google and as a result, Google has taken down a series of adverts. Similar work will be carried out with other search engine providers.

    The National Trading Standards Board will receive an additional £120,000 to clamp down on misleading websites.

    The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has issued messages on Twitter and gov.uk to advise customers that gov.uk is the only official website. Officials have worked with the press to inform customers that they may be charged an unnecessary fee if they do not use gov.uk. The DVLA is arranging to amend forms, leaflets and envelopes to make the correct website clearer for customers. Officials will continue to issue appropriate communications to help raise awareness of these sites.