Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance has been given in the last ten years by the College of Policing to police authorities about believing witnesses; whether there have been any proposals to change that guidance in that period; and if so, what.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The College of Policing has not issued guidance to the police in respect of believing witnesses since its formation in 2012.
The College of Policing is currently considering the outcome of a review into the terminology used to guide police when an allegation of crime is made. The review can be found online here: http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/review-into-believing-victims-at-the-time-of-reporting.aspx
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to monitor access to flash glucose monitoring to ensure its availability in all areas of England.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
The flash glucose testing monitoring system known as the Freestyle Libre was approved for reimbursement on National Health Service prescription from 1 November 2017 through its listing in Part IX of the NHS England and Wales Drug Tariff.
The listing of a medical device in the Drug Tariff should not be interpreted as a recommendation to prescribe a particular product. Flash glucose testing is not suitable for everyone. The Regional Medicines Optimisation Committee has issued advice on the use of Freestyle Libre to support decisions about its use. Patients will need to discuss the ongoing management of their condition with their healthcare professional and consider whether flash glucose monitoring is suitable for them.
The Department has no plans to ask clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to review their prescribing policies or monitor access to flash glucose monitoring.
Within its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to new drugs and medical technologies. Ultimately it is for CCGs, who are primarily responsible for commissioning diabetes services, to meet the requirements of their population. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population, are based on the available evidence and take into account national guidelines. This includes determining whether specific technologies, such as flash glucose monitoring, form part of their service and if it is suitable for individual patients to support the ongoing management of their condition.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are plans to encourage Clinical Commissioning Groups to review their policies on prescribing flash glucose monitoring systems to those with type 1 diabetes on the NHS.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
The flash glucose testing monitoring system known as the Freestyle Libre was approved for reimbursement on National Health Service prescription from 1 November 2017 through its listing in Part IX of the NHS England and Wales Drug Tariff.
The listing of a medical device in the Drug Tariff should not be interpreted as a recommendation to prescribe a particular product. Flash glucose testing is not suitable for everyone. The Regional Medicines Optimisation Committee has issued advice on the use of Freestyle Libre to support decisions about its use. Patients will need to discuss the ongoing management of their condition with their healthcare professional and consider whether flash glucose monitoring is suitable for them.
The Department has no plans to ask clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to review their prescribing policies or monitor access to flash glucose monitoring.
Within its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to new drugs and medical technologies. Ultimately it is for CCGs, who are primarily responsible for commissioning diabetes services, to meet the requirements of their population. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population, are based on the available evidence and take into account national guidelines. This includes determining whether specific technologies, such as flash glucose monitoring, form part of their service and if it is suitable for individual patients to support the ongoing management of their condition.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect of flash glucose monitoring on the management of diabetes.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
The flash glucose testing monitoring system known as the Freestyle Libre was approved for reimbursement on National Health Service prescription from 1 November 2017 through its listing in Part IX of the NHS England and Wales Drug Tariff.
The listing of a medical device in the Drug Tariff should not be interpreted as a recommendation to prescribe a particular product. Flash glucose testing is not suitable for everyone. The Regional Medicines Optimisation Committee has issued advice on the use of Freestyle Libre to support decisions about its use. Patients will need to discuss the ongoing management of their condition with their healthcare professional and consider whether flash glucose monitoring is suitable for them.
The Department has no plans to ask clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to review their prescribing policies or monitor access to flash glucose monitoring.
Within its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to new drugs and medical technologies. Ultimately it is for CCGs, who are primarily responsible for commissioning diabetes services, to meet the requirements of their population. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population, are based on the available evidence and take into account national guidelines. This includes determining whether specific technologies, such as flash glucose monitoring, form part of their service and if it is suitable for individual patients to support the ongoing management of their condition.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to ensure that the FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitoring system is accessible to all diabetes patients who would benefit from it.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
The flash glucose testing monitoring system known as the Freestyle Libre was approved for reimbursement on National Health Service prescription from 1 November 2017 through its listing in Part IX of the NHS England and Wales Drug Tariff.
The listing of a medical device in the Drug Tariff should not be interpreted as a recommendation to prescribe a particular product. Flash glucose testing is not suitable for everyone. The Regional Medicines Optimisation Committee has issued advice on the use of Freestyle Libre to support decisions about its use. Patients will need to discuss the ongoing management of their condition with their healthcare professional and consider whether flash glucose monitoring is suitable for them.
The Department has no plans to ask clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to review their prescribing policies or monitor access to flash glucose monitoring.
Within its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to new drugs and medical technologies. Ultimately it is for CCGs, who are primarily responsible for commissioning diabetes services, to meet the requirements of their population. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population, are based on the available evidence and take into account national guidelines. This includes determining whether specific technologies, such as flash glucose monitoring, form part of their service and if it is suitable for individual patients to support the ongoing management of their condition.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Lord Young of Cookham on 25 January (HL Deb, cols 1083–1085), what action they are taking to widen the pool of talent for appointment to public bodies.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
In December 2017, the Government published a Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan which sets out the range of activities we are undertaking to attract and to support new and diverse talent into public appointments. It sets out our ambition that, by 2022, 50% of all public appointees should be female and 14% of all public appointments should be from ethnic minorities (currently 43% and 10% respectively). It also announced a review of the barriers preventing disabled people from taking up public appointments. Other actions include improving the recruitment process to maximise opportunities for candidates from the broadest range of backgrounds, developing the networks through which to raise awareness of public appointments, and establishing a group of mentors who will provide peer-to-peer support for new and high potential candidates.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecution cases have collapsed because of a failure to disclose evidence in the last two years.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Prosecutors should identify and, where appropriate, seek to rectify evidential weaknesses in a case. However, they should stop cases which do not meet the evidential stage of the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and which cannot be strengthened by further investigation, or where the public interest clearly does not require a prosecution. There is a continuing duty of review throughout the case.
Internal CPS case outcome recording data for 2015-17 shows that issues connected to the disclosure of unused material were recorded as the primary reason in 0.81% of all prosecutions that did not result in a conviction.
Other reasons prosecutions may be stopped include that new material reviewed during the case reveals evidence which undermines the prosecution case, key witnesses do not attend, key evidence is ruled inadmissible, or other circumstances change to the extent that a charge no longer meets the evidential stage of the Full Code Test.
The most frequent reason that a prosecution did not result in a conviction was that the defendant was acquitted after trial. This was the reason in 25% of such cases.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Attorney General received a letter from the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission on the issue of disclosure of evidence; and whether that correspondence can, and will, be published.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Attorney General’s Office received a letter regarding disclosure in criminal proceedings from the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission on 7 July 2016. The text of the letter is published on their website ccrc.gov.uk. It highlighted that particular attention would be drawn to the issue in their annual report published later that month.
In April 2016 the Attorney General wrote to the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates supporting a proposal for a joint thematic inspection of disclosure as one of the most important issues in the trial process and a vital component of a fair trial.
The CCRC letter was drawn to the attention of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service to assist preparation for the joint inspection of disclosure which was carried out between January and July 2017.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Attorney General's review of disclosure procedures included a review of prosecutions in magistrates' courts; and if so, when they were included.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Attorney General’s review of disclosure is a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system, including specifically how processes and policies are implemented by prosecution and defence practitioners, police officers and investigators.
The review will consider evidence under the following cross-cutting themes:
a) Processes within ‘volume’ cases (within the Crown Courts and Magistrates’ Courts) and ‘complex cases’ including economic crime;
b) Guidance, including any Codes of Practices, Protocols or Guidelines and legislation;
c) Case management, including initiatives such as ‘Transforming Summary Justice’, ‘Better Case Management’ and ‘Digital Casework’; and
d) Capabilities across criminal justice system including staffing, training, existing tools and digital technology.
The scope of the review is wide and has always included disclosure in magistrates’ courts. The Terms of Reference will be published on the Attorney General’s Office website.
Asked by: Lord Morris of Aberavon (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, for the last available year, how many cases were not proceeded with in magistrates' courts on the date fixed for trial because of a failure by the prosecution to disclose evidence.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
CPS data for 2016-17 records that there were prosecutions of 499,816 defendants completed in the magistrates’ court, resulting in the conviction of 423,715 defendants, a conviction rate of 84.8%.
There are a number of reasons why a case may not be proceeded with after charge. Review of cases is a continuing process and prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, particularly as details of the defence case become known.
Internal CPS case outcome recording data does not record cases by reference to the date on which the decision not to proceed was made. It is therefore not possible to provide data for cases that were not proceeded with on the date fixed for trial. Issues relating to the failure to disclosure unused material accounted for 1% of the cases that did not result in a conviction in the magistrates’ court in that year.