Skip to main content

Written Parliamentary Questions: 6th October 2006

Relative Need
Q:To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the relative need factors are; and what value they have for the financial year 2006-07.(John Hemming)

A:I have been asked to reply.

The Relative Needs Formulae are, based on the demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area, used in the calculation of Formula Grant. Formula Grant comprises Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Business Rates and principal formula Police Grant.

In 2006-07, the total of all the Relative Needs Formulae is factor of 0.67811309347259. The total for each of the separate Relative Needs Formulae are given in Annex E of the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2006-07.

The Relative Needs Formulae for each local authority can be found on the Department for Communities and Local Government website at:

http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/0607/g:rant.htm
(Phil Woolas, Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government)

Inmate Information System
Q:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fields of data are stored in the Inmate Information System (IIS); for what reason information on deportation order recommendations were not stored in the IIS; and if he will ensure that such information is stored in the IIS in the future. (John Hemming)

A:The Inmate Information System (IIS) records a large number of fields covering personal, offence and sentence details and disciplinary adjudications. It can identify a prisoner as a deportee but only when they are not also serving a custodial sentence. When IIS was introduced, the numbers of foreign national prisoners recommended for deportation were relatively small. IIS is to be replaced by the C-NOMIS system from 2007 and this will record recommendations for deportation. (Liam Byrne, Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…