|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Maclean : It is clear that the operation of the current rules on disclosure causes a number of problems in respect of members of the public who allow their homes to be used for surveillance by the police. The Government are reviewing this issue as part of their consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice about prosecution and defence disclosure.
Mr. Charles Wardle : We are currently consulting interested groups on how far game licences continue to meet their original objective of combating poaching and enforcing the statutory close season and on whether there may be better means of achieving the same object.
Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teachers, per London borough, are employed directly on section 11 funded projects ; and what estimate he has made as to how many will lose their jobs following the change in the grants formula.
Mr. Peter Lloyd : Information is not maintained centrally in the form requested. The number of designated teacher posts approved for funding under section 11 grant in each London borough is shown in the table, in full-time equivalent terms.
London Borough |Number of FTE |teacher posts |approved ----------------------------------------------------- Barking and Dagenham |15.6 Barnet |48.5 Bexley |7.0 Brent |92.5 Bromley |- Camden |72.4 Croydon |63.2 Ealing |184.4 Enfield |64.0 Greenwich |85.0 Hackney |225.5 Hammersmith and Fulham |40.6 Haringey |181.1 Harrow |37.0 Havering |3.0 Hillingdon |13.0 Hounslow |91.4 Islington |102.0 Kensington and Chelsea |58.0 Kingston |7.1 Lambeth |51.2 Lewisham |98.0 Merton |28.0 Newham |132.2 Redbridge |56.6 Richmond |4.0 Southwark |108.5 Sutton |2.0 Tower Hamlets |428.5 Waltham Forest |114.0 Wandsworth |112.4 Westminster |95.5 Notes: 1. Figures relate to posts in full-time equivalent terms, not individuals. 2. Figures include any such posts in grant maintained schools within a borough's area
Column 906All approved posts remain eligible for grant funding. It is a matter for authorities to decide, within their overall financial provision, how they propose to proceed in the light of the reductions in section 11 funding which we regret it has been necessary to make.
Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure, per London borough, on section 11 projects for each of the past five years ; what it will be in the current year ; and what is the proposed expenditure for 1994-95.
(a) for the years between 1988-89 and 1992-93, grant expenditure under section 11 ;
(b) for 1993-94, amounts of grant under three quarterly payments so far made ; and
(c) budget allocations which have been notified as the basis for grant recipients' own expenditure in 1994-95.
Since grant is currently paid on the basis of actual expenditure incurred by grant recipients, it is not possible to give grant expenditure figures for 1993-94 as a whole, or for 1994-95. It should be noted that the later figures in relation to the Inner London education authority include grant in respect of earlier years, payment of which had been delayed due to the late submission of claims.
Section 11 Grant: London boroughs |1988-89 |1989-90 |1990-91 |1991-92 |1992-93 |1993-94 |1994-95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barking and Dagenham |211,233 |246,230 |245,849 |223,204 |317,607 |230,289 |230,860 Barnet |1,049,851 |949,002 |1,202,176 |1,073,736 |1,135,419 |808,203 |748,243 Bexley |11,104 |13,049 |15,523 |13,105 |55,271 |95,293 |100,138 Brent |4,025,852 |3,349,013 |2,614,389 |2,521,332 |2,449,332 |1,627,435 |1,742,385 Bromley |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 Camden |244,234 |424,671 |1,544,899 |1,635,092 |1,441,285 |784,832 |1,111,346 Croydon |1,235,905 |1,093,806 |1,384,268 |1,351,821 |1,250,852 |930,801 |949,775 Ealing |3,654,390 |4,711,527 |5,579,558 |4,578,343 |3,253,875 |2,112,204 |2,632,879 Enfield |346,133 |470,294 |535,477 |496,131 |988,721 |1,053,026 |1,058,164 Greenwich |491,847 |455,939 |1,248,340 |1,334,721 |1,557,710 |1,178,481 |1,329,673 Hackney |941,829 |1,499,707 |4,299,227 |4,128,546 |4,191,327 |2,874,005 |3,002,040 Hammersmith and Fulham |212,962 |142,900 |1,011,358 |1,000,212 |764,353 |680,384 |713,289 Haringey |1,992,027 |2,988,487 |2,871,610 |1,663,800 |2,357,008 |1,857,603 |2,604,874 Harrow |567,214 |568,947 |755,346 |708,141 |808,967 |580,320 |556,992 Havering |0 |36,407 |29,798 |27,934 |45,490 |36,622 |39,169 Hillingdon |369,717 |374,464 |448,158 |529,700 |432,290 |332,159 |317,055 Hounslow |1,250,491 |1,889,641 |1,620,992 |1,712,577 |1,824,153 |1,265,608 |1,401,864 Islington |412,193 |527,806 |1,727,799 |1,689,993 |1,981,114 |1,262,481 |1,434,673 Kensington and Chelsea |133,599 |162,496 |1,051,382 |1,027,752 |1,081,670 |830,214 |899,845 Kingston |9,866 |1,210 |0 |0 |77,628 |108,532 |106,742 Lambeth |689,373 |262,171 |1,468,067 |1,665,526 |1,511,432 |1,046,532 |1,109,603 Lewisham |317,569 |332,541 |1,440,252 |1,382,641 |1,883,935 |1,394,157 |1,637,467 Merton |705,491 |441,369 |588,786 |435,738 |373,830 |463,386 |490,246 Newham |2,506,284 |2,877,460 |2,580,767 |2,428,165 |3,255,362 |1,899,954 |2,206,728 Redbridge |816,962 |853,644 |880,844 |858,488 |1,103,708 |870,444 |933,052 Richmond |69,177 |66,446 |74,879 |52,427 |56,716 |53,729 |56,225 Southwark |515,764 |270,503 |2,302,159 |2,096,790 |1,894,304 |1,622,506 |1,965,479 Sutton |3,848 |16,920 |15,696 |19,367 |46,201 |44,137 |46,902 Tower Hamlets |266,711 |291,460 |4,353,398 |4,962,547 |8,771,856 |5,978,576 |6,826,782 Waltham Forest |1,641,928 |1,540,411 |1,627,145 |1,270,270 |1,897,467 |1,501,779 |1,585,015 Wandsworth |312,391 |309,424 |2,117,834 |2,176,164 |1,998,135 |1,234,737 |1,434,386 Westminster |68,948 |73,648 |1,519,653 |1,316,560 |1,899,147 |1,329,921 |1,498,548 London Boroughs Grants Unit |0 |18,142 |7,022 |7,928 |62,510 |113,815 |117,528 Inner London Education Authority |7,503,850 |21,941,375|19,308,052|0 |0 |0 |0
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the effect of the privatisation of prisons on prison dogs ; and if he will make a statement.
Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 17 February 1994 :
The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what representations have been received about the effect of the privatisation of prisons on prison dogs.
I have assumed that your Question refers to recent newspaper articles suggesting that the Prison Service intends to have the dogs destroyed. We have received a number of representations in response to these articles.
The candidacy of the Prison Dog Service for market testing has been suspended, as under present law contractors would be unable to exercise powers to stop and search inmates. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would remedy this. The future of the dogs will come into question only if there is a market test and a private sector contractor wins the contract. We would expect to find alternative work placements or homes for the dogs.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for the last convenient year details of the crime detection rate for each police force area in England and Wales, together with the equivalent rates for England as a whole and for Wales as a whole.
Mr. Simpson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the communications business of the Home Office has to close the Ruddington head office ; what are the consequences to be for the staff in the event of such closure ; and if he will make a statement ;
(2) if he expects to initiate pre-redundancy measures as detailed in the model redundancy agreement and if necessary to offer staff the option of secondment ; and if he will make a statement ;
(3) if he will ensure that any proposed purchaser intends to respect existing terms and conditions of employment of the communicatioins business of the Home Office employees and that employees' severance terms shall not be changed without consent and that there can be no unilateral change to these terms ;
(4) what conclusion he has reached on the representations made by unions at the communications business of the Home Office concerning a guarantee of redundancy money in the event that any new owner of DTELS becomes insolvent ; and if he will make a statement ; (5) what is the status of the proposed sale of the communications business of the Home Office ; who has managed the sale ; what is the purchase consideration ; and if he will make a statement ; (6) what proposals there are for the communications business of the Home Office to relocate staff presently
Column 908operating at Ruddington head office to be relocated at the DTELS establishment at Stanton ; and if he will make a statement ; (7) what indications he has received from any proposed purchaser of the communications business of the Home Office to maintain the recognition agreement with NUCPS, CPSA and IPMS unions ; and if he will make a statement ;
(8) what steps he has taken to ensure that the communications business of the Home Office shall retain its autonomy and that the privatisation process shall help to protect jobs ; and if he will make a statement.
National Transcommunications Ltd. has been approved as preferred bidders for DTELS and negotiations to complete the sale are under way. The purchase consideration must be treated as commercial in confidence.
NTL is not in a position to set out in detail future staffing plans for the business. These will be finalised following completion of the sale. It has announced, though, that it intends to close DTELS's existing Ruddington head office within 12 months and to transfer operations to Winchester, with some staff relocating to the existing DTELS site at nearby Stanton. Opportunities may also arise at other NTL or DTELS locations.
We have no plans to initiate pre-redundancy measures under the model redundancy agreement or to second staff in response to NTL plans. The unions have been informed that the Government's normal clean break policy on privatisation will apply and that there will be no Government underwriting of any redundancy payment which are the responsibility of NTL.
NTL has undertaken that where redundancies are necessary it will respect the procedures currently in place. Staff terms and conditions, including severance rights, are protected on transfer by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. NTL has undertaken also to adhere to collective bargaining arrangements. Any proposal to change conditions of service would be discussed and agreement sought. It has confirmed that it would not seek to make unilateral changes.
The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is the union recognised by NTL for collective bargaining. NTL recognises that existing recognition of civil service unions within DTELS transfers across. It aims though, to recognise BECTU as the sole union which represents all staff. It is understood that BECTU and the civil service unions are discussing how this might be achieved. While it was not a requirement of sale, NTL has indicated that DTELS will operate as a separate entity within its organisation and that a separate operations structure will be maintained.
We think that DTELS is being sold to a purchaser which will meet its responsibilities to staff and customers. While NTL has indicated that there will be redundancies, privatisation ensures that for the majority there is the best prospect of long-term job security.
Mr. Straw : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for ensuring that courts are placed under a stronger duty to inquire into a convicted defendant's former medical history and circumstances where there is an application to adjourn the date of sentencing on grounds of illness.
We are not persuaded that it is necessary to place courts under such a duty.
Mr. Howard : As police authority for the Metropolitan police district, I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure of £1,660.724 million in 1994-95. There will be a cash limit on current expenditure of £1,616.511 million. Capital expenditure is subject to separate control.
I have also approved the issue of a precept of £133.55 per property in band D of the council tax valuation band Metropolitan police purposes.
I have discussed the estimates for the Metropolitan police expenditure in 1994-95 with representatives of the London local authority associations.
Mr. Heald : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report on the review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which began in July 1993 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Charles Wardle : We received the report late in December. The report concludes that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 has been successful in its primary objective of saving lives. But it suggests that certification is no longer the only or best way of achieving fire safety and that there is room for a substantial move to self-compliance. It recommends, however, that adequate controls must be retained to maintain high standards of public protection where necessary and to enable fire authorities to target their resources at high risk premises. It recommends the removal of Crown immunity from enforcement action other than in very limited circumstances. We will consider this report alongside the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny on fire safety enforcement which began on 17 January. However, in the meantime, we believe that it is important that all interested parties are able to consider the findings and recommendations of the review and I have today arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Interested parties can obtain copies by writing to the Fire Safety Division of the Home Office, Horseferry house, Dean Ryle street, London SW1P 2AW.
Column 910matches under section 3(1) of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 : and how many of these prosecutions were successful.
Mr. Maclean : In England and Wales in 1992, there were 31 prosecutions under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991, 21 of which resulted in a conviction. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn.
Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by (a) the Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994-95, showing for each one the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.
Mr. John M. Taylor : The Lord Chancellor's Department has conducted no television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising or promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 in the current financial year, 1993-94. No advertising or promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 are planned for 1994-95. The same applies to the two agencies for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility--the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry.
Mr. Justice Brooke (Chairman)
Professor Jack Beatson
Miss Diana Faber
Mr. Charles Harpum.
Mr. John Mr. Taylor [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The following are currently members of the Judicial Studies Board : Lord Justice Henry (Chairman), Judge Francis Allen, Mr. P. Birts, QC, Mr. Justice Brooke, Judge Crane, Mr. P. F. Guggenheim, JP, Mr. J. F. Halliday, District Judge Holloway, Mr. R. E. K. Holmes, Mr. Justice Johnson, Lord Justice Kennedy, Judge Machin, QC, Professor M. Partington, Judge Sumner, Mr. Justice Tuckey, Dr. D. A. Thomas.
Column 911and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. There are also six members appointed by the Lord Chancellor as having special knowledge of or experience in financial or commercial matters. Their names are Mr. H. A. Stevenson, Mr. R. L. Payton, Mr. A. Spier, Mr. R. J. G. White, Mr. A. J. Ring and Mrs. S. Sadeque.
Mr. John M. Taylor [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The president of the transport tribunal is Judge Harold Wilson. The chairmen are Judge Michael Brodrick, Robert Owen QC and, in Scotland, J. Mair. The other members of the tribunal are Miss B. Haran, Mr. T. Hall, Mr. G. Simms, Mr. J. Whitworth and Mr. P. Rogers.
Mr. John M. Taylor [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The members of the Lands Tribunal are His Honour Judge Marder QC (President), His Honour Judge O'Donoghue and His Honour Judge Rich. In addition to these legal members there are also five surveyor members : Mr. P. H. Clarke, Mr. J. C. Hill, Mr. M. Hopper, Dr. T. Hoyes and Mr. A. P. Musto.
Mr. John M. Taylor [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The president of the Value Added Tax Tribunal is His Honour Stephen Oliver QC. The four full-time chairmen are Mr. R. A. Bennett QC, Mr. J. D. Demack, Mr. A. W. Simpson and Mr. W. T. A. Wallace. There are also 30 part-time chairmen whose names are :
J. F. Avery Jones
C. P. Bishopp
Mrs. A. N. Brice
M. P. Cornwell-Kelly
J. F. Easton
J. H. Fryer-Spedding
Mrs. E. Gilliland
Miss J. C. Gort
P. E. Heim
P. Horsfield, QC
R. P. Huggins
M. S. Johnson
F. L. De May
R. K. Miller, CB
Mrs. J. C. Mitting
A. S. T. E. Nicol
B. M. F. O'Brien
M. F. J. Palmer
Miss J. Plumptre
D. S. Porter
H. H. Robin Rowland, QC
D. A. Shirley
I. E. Vellins
R. H. Widdows
P. W. De Voil
Miss J. Warburton
There are also 136 other members as follows :
Mrs Edith Rachel Adams, FCA ATII
John Adrian, Esq
Ms Caroline Susan De Albuquerque