Tag: Lord Morris of Aberavon

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-11-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many persons interviewed by police, but not charged, have had their names released on the decision of a senior police officer because of the threat to life, detection of further crime, or because of public interest or confidence, in the last period for which figures are available.

Lord Bates

The Home Office does not hold this information. However, the decision to release names and/or details of suspects in a criminal investigation are decisions for the police, which are guided in making such decisions by the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Guidance on ‘Relationships with the media’.

A key principle of the guidance is that the police have a duty to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of information (including personal data) which must be balanced against the duty to be open and transparent whenever possible.

There are clearly great risks in naming suspects and the guidance makes clear that decisions should only be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless they have clearly identified circumstances to justify disclosure.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-12-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Attorney General has approved the rules of engagement for the RAF bombing of Syria, and whether he will be consulted regularly to ensure that such military action is carried out in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Lord Keen of Elie

As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, in carrying out any military action in Syria, the Government will at all times act in accordance with the law.

In line with the longstanding Law Officers’ Convention, reflected in both the Cabinet Manual and the Ministerial Code, I am unable to provide specific details as to the role of the Attorney General in this matter.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-12-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to recent research by Professor Jeffrey Bluestone and others at the University of California on the immune system of those with type 1 diabetes; and whether funding will be made available to diabetes researchers in the UK to keep pace with such developments.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Research relating to immunotherapy for type 1 diabetes is being carried out by researchers at the University of California and at other institutions internationally. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is funding research relating to immunotherapy for type 1 diabetes at the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. In addition, the NIHR funds a wide range of other research relating to diabetes.

The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including immunotherapy for type 1 diabetes. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-12-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Home Secretary will discuss with the police whether a protocol should be agreed to rationalise and improve on the present system of names of persons interviewed by the police but not charged being made public on a case by case basis.

Lord Bates

The decision to release the name or details of a suspect in an investigation is an operational one for the police to take.

The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) ‘Guidance on ‘Relationships with the Media’, which was developed in full consultation with the police, makes clear that decisions on releasing the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should be made on a case by case basis and that the police should not do so unless there are clearly identified circumstances to justify it, such as threat to life or the prevention or detection of crime. This guidance will be reviewed by the College early in the New Year.

It is the Government’s position that, in general, there should be a right to anonymity before the point of charge. However, there are circumstances where the police decide it is in the public interest that an arrested suspect should be named.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 30 November 2015 (HL3712), whether, in the interests of transparency, they will arrange for police forces to collate and publicise the occasions on which persons arrested but not charged have had their names disclosed.

Lord Bates

The Home Office currently has no plans to arrange for police forces to collate and publish data in relation to the occasions on which persons arrested but not charged have had their names disclosed.

Police are guided in making such decisions by the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) Guidance on ‘Relationships with the media’.

There are clearly great risks in naming suspects and the College of Policing guidance makes clear that decisions should only be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless they have clearly identified circumstances to justify disclosure.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which particular EU directive or regulation has led to banks, credit companies and stores reviewing their loyalty schemes in order to differentiate between points earned from transactions inside and outside an institution, and how the UK voted when that matter was decided in the Council of Ministers.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

The Government has been determined to tackle the unfair fees being charged to UK businesses for processing card transactions through the Interchange Fee Regulation, which came into force in December 2015. In order to make sure that consumers as well as businesses benefit as a result of the Interchange Fee Regulation, the UK negotiated through the revised Payment Services Directive capping or, in some cases banning completely, the charges that some businesses ask of customers who pay by debit or credit card.

We are aware that some banks and other companies are cutting back on their customer rewards packages to recoup costs they face as a result of the interchange fee caps. However, this is a commercial decision on the part of these companies – not all firms have followed suit.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-03-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 25 February (HL Deb, col 389), when they first made representations to the EU Commission as regards allegations of dumping of Chinese steel; when action was taken by the Commission; and what assessment they have made of whether the Commission took effective and prompt action.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The European Commission currently has 37 measures in place against steel products, 16 of which concern imports from China.

The government makes regular representations to the European Commission concerning allegations of dumping of steel. The government judges each anti-dumping investigation on its merits, based on the evidence presented by the Commission and on representations from interested parties, including producers, users and importers. We have supported industry calls for action in recent cases, for example in the reinforcing bar case we have raised the steel industry’s concerns that the provisional duties were too low with the Commission. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills spoke with Commissioner Malmström about this and received assurance that the Commission will reconsider this during the definitive stage of the investigation, if industry can provide the necessary evidence.

Given the current crisis in the steel industry, we continue to press the Commission for faster, more effective action to deal with dumping of steel.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding increases they have proposed for type 1 diabetes in 2016–17 and in subsequent years.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) commission services for people with type 1 diabetes and we would expect them to prioritise their funding in accordance with local needs and within the overall resources available.

The effective treatment and care of diabetes is one of the clinical priority areas highlighted in the CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework recently published by NHS England.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-10-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the response by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 17 October (HL Deb, col 2164), what is meant by the word formally, what other concerns were raised, what exactly the Home Secretary and Permanent Secretary of the Home Office were told, and whether they will publish the full record of their exchange with officials at the level of Assistant Secretary or equivalent and above.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary set out the position on the floor of the House and to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 17 and 18 October respectively.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2015-10-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 20 October, what consideration they gave to discussing with the European Union the possibility of mothballing some of the steel plants recently announced for closure; what assessment they have made of the difficulties in mothballing a plant; and what estimates they have made, if any, about the costs of doing so.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The state aid rules on giving operating, rescue and restructuring aid to steel companies are unambiguously clear and all such interventions are prohibited. This includes Government financial support for mothballing of steel plant. Given the lack of ambiguity there has been no need to discuss these matters with the European Commission.

We know that the SSI Redcar plan had made losses of over £600m in over three years. When the company went into liquidation, the Official Receiver bought supplies to keep certain operations such as the coke ovens going in the hope of funding a commercial buyout. Unfortunately no commercial buyer could be found to maintain operations at the plant. While this was deeply disappointing news, with such large losses and debts, and the price of steel produces expected to stay depressed for some considerable time, it was perhaps not surprising.