Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

178345

registered interest
date	06/02/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought forward a prosecution against Terrence Potter and Paul Whitehead of the Lunesdale Hunt.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4733
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>There is no plan to investigate the basis upon which this prosecution was brought.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The prosecution was brought following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police into the alleged commission of a wildlife crime. The two defendants were originally charged by the police to appear in Court on 5 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) subsequently undertook a review of the case, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and determined, firstly, that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that it was in the public interest to prosecute.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As the allegations were denied, the case was listed for trial before York Magistrates’ Court on 21 January 2015. On the day of trial, two key prosecution witnesses who produced video evidence of the offence were unavailable to attend court. The CPS had previously made an application to adjourn and reschedule the trial. Due to an administrative failing this application was made very close to the trial date and it was refused by the court. The trial then took place in the absence of these two witnesses and without their evidence being heard. The Court found no case to answer against each defendant.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:34:31 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178346

registered interest
date	06/02/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scrutiny the Crown Prosecution Service makes of any evidence presented to them by the League Against Cruel Sports alleging breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 before deciding to prosecute.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4734
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes following an investigation and referral of a case by the police. If the police charge an offence under the Hunting Act 2004 without a request for advice, a crown prosecutor reviews the case following charge. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Where the evidential and public interest stages of the Full Code Test are met, then the CPS will robustly prosecute.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The prosecutor must consider whether each piece of evidence is admissible, reliable and credible – this would include being satisfied that it was lawfully obtained. Evidence provided by the League against Cruel Sports would be looked at in the same way as any other evidence.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:35:00 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178347

registered interest
date	06/02/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Mr Liddle of the Melbreak Hunt, charges which were then dropped.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4735
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>Cumbria Constabulary charged Mr Liddle with hunting a wild mammal with dogs (contrary to Sections 1 and 6 of the Hunting Act 2004) and allowing dogs to be dangerously out of control (contrary to Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This followed an incident on 9 March 2014 when members of the public witnessed a fox being killed by a pack of hounds on land near Buttermere. The police were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Liddle and issued a postal requisition on 6 June 2014. These offences fall within the category of offences where the charging decision rests with the police. Mr Liddle appeared at Workington Magistrates Court on 27 June 2014 and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Following receipt of all the evidential material from the police, the case was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service’s North West Area Wildlife Crime Lead. He applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and determined that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction having considered all of the required elements of the offence. Following consultation with Cumbria Constabulary the case was discontinued on 10 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service did not, therefore, bring charges against Mr Liddle. The case was brought to an end after the full evidential material was reviewed.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 19/02/2015 09:34:10 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178348

registered interest
date	06/02/2015
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Hunting: Prosecutions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Donald Summersgill and joint-masters Rupert Andrews and David Greenwood of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4736
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/02/2015 answer text <p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) properly applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors to the available evidence when making a decision to charge the three individuals with offences under the Hunting Act 2004. Having applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision was that at that time there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the charges laid against all three men.</p><p>Prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as a case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. As a consequence of further information being made available it later became apparent that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The case was duly stopped.</p><p>There is no reason to believe that the CPS in reaching the decision to charge these three individuals did anything which requires an investigation into its conduct of the case.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Tankerness question first answered 25/02/2015 13:22:13 answering member 630 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Tankerness
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

178349

registered interest
date	06/02/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	RSPCA
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the RSPCA, as a private organisation, is able to bring prosecutions but is not subject to independent inspection or Freedom of Information requests.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4737
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/02/2015 answer text <p>The RSPCA is able to bring prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 because that particular piece of legislation allows anyone to do so, even private individuals, if they have the necessary evidence to do so. The RSPCA is not a public authority and so is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord De Mauley question first answered 16/02/2015 16:53:29 answering member 2202 label Biography information for Lord De Mauley
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

176269

registered interest
date	28/01/2015
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	USA
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made representations to the government of the United States about the lawsuit brought by Hershey's against import of Cadbury's chocolate products made in England.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4527
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/02/2015 answer text <p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p>Her Majesty’s Government has made no representations in this case. This is a commercial dispute between Hershey’s (as the licenced manufacturer and distributor of Cadbury products within the USA) and a US importer. This dispute relies upon well-known rules and principles and the companies involved have the right to take issues such as this to the judicial authorities in the appropriate territory.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 05/02/2015 13:19:07 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

176270

registered interest
date	28/01/2015
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	USA
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take any steps against any Hershey's products manufactured in the United Kingdom while that company pursues its action in the United States courts against Cadbury products made in England.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4528
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/02/2015 answer text <p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p>Her Majesty’s Government currently has no intention of taking any steps against Hershey around the facts of this case. This is a commercial dispute between Hershey’s (as the licenced manufacturer and distributor of Cadbury products within the USA) and a US importer. This dispute relies upon well known rules and principles and the companies involved have the right to take issues such as this to the judicial authorities in the appropriate territory.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 05/02/2015 13:19:30 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

176271

registered interest
date	28/01/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Chocolate: EU Action
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to make representations at European Union level in respect of the use of the word "chocolate" to describe products containing less than 20 per cent chocolate.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4529
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/02/2015 answer text <p>There are currently no plans to make representations at European Level on the use of the word chocolate.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003 set out the composition and standards for chocolate including definitions. Chocolate shall not contain less than 35 per cent total dry cocoa solids and milk chocolate or family milk chocolate not less than 20 per cent total dry cocoa solids.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>There are rules in place under the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulations EU No 1169/2011 to ensure the consumer is not misled. Quantitative ingredient declarations (QUID) apply to all pre packed foods. This means that where chocolate is a characterising ingredient e.g. a chocolate cake, the percentage of the chocolate has to be declared in the ingredients list.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord De Mauley question first answered 05/02/2015 15:27:58 answering member 2202 label Biography information for Lord De Mauley
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

175865

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Female Genital Mutilation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government on average how many cases of female genital mutilation are reported to the police for investigation per day.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4445
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p>Information on the number of cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) that are reported to the police for investigation is not collated centrally.</p><p>The Government has consulted on the introduction of a new mandatory reporting duty to require professionals to report cases of FGM. The consultation sought views on how best to introduce this new duty, including what the sanctions should be for failure to report. The consultation closed on 12 January and we are carefully considering the responses. We will announce the results of the consultation shortly.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL4446 question first answered 03/02/2015 15:22:15 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

175866

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Female Genital Mutilation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to criminalise the failure to report a suspected case of female genital mutilation to the police.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL4446
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p>Information on the number of cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) that are reported to the police for investigation is not collated centrally.</p><p>The Government has consulted on the introduction of a new mandatory reporting duty to require professionals to report cases of FGM. The consultation sought views on how best to introduce this new duty, including what the sanctions should be for failure to report. The consultation closed on 12 January and we are carefully considering the responses. We will announce the results of the consultation shortly.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL4445 question first answered 03/02/2015 15:22:15 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra