| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Heseltine [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Government have agreed that a compliance cost assessment should be prepared in the following circumstances:
in support of papers for collective discussion that deal with proposals which may have an impact on business;
when preparing statistical surveys which will involve business; alongside draft primary, secondary and EC legislation having an impact on business when it is presented to Parliament;
as part of the advice to Ministers on the line to be taken on a private Member's Bill which affects business;
All CCAs accompanying draft Government legislation are published. My Department issued four of these in the first three months of this year, copies of which are in the Library. A list of all CCAs issued between November 1993 and June 1994 was published in December 1994--Cm 2719. Another Command Paper covering the period July to December 1994 will be published shortly.
Mahogany
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19849]
Mr. Ian Taylor: In the last five years the only item purchased for my Department's London headquarters which contains mahogany was a veneer meeting table bought in 1990 at a cost of around £400. Comparable information is not available for the DTI's agencies.
Pergau Dam
Mr. Worthington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 31 March, Official Report , column 886 , in what circumstances further contributions will be made from the public purse to meet cost escalations for the Pergau dam. [19692]
Mr. Heseltine: No approach has been made to date which will entail additional contributions from the public purse to meet cost escalations for the Pergau dam.
Column 189
HOME DEPARTMENT
Rules and Regulations
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19363]
Mr. Howard [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Thirty eight instruments were revoked in the months January, February and March 1995. Twenty-eight statutory instruments were made during that period, not including commencement orders. Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure. Of these, over half revoked earlier instruments or substituted a more favourable regime for business.
Firearms
Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the (a) name, (b) occupation or former occupation, (c) place of residence and (d) annual honorarium, allowance and/or payment of each member of the Advisory Committee on Firearms; and if he will make a statement; [19017] (2) what recommendations he has received from the Advisory Committee on Firearms in relation to the certification of shotguns in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [19019]
Mr. Maclean: The Firearms Consultative Committee is a statutory body set up under section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Members appointed to the committee are chosen from those who appear to the Home Secretary to have knowledge and experience of either the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in firearms; or weapon technology; or the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Acts in Great Britain.
A list of committee members with biographies relevant to their appointment is contained in the committee's fifth annual report, a copy of which is in the Library. Since the report was published, Lord Shrewsbury has assumed chairmanship of the committee and Sir Malcolm Guthrie has resigned. Communications to committee members should be addressed to the Secretary, Firearms Consultative Committee, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London SW1H 9AT. Members receive no allowance, but travelling expenses are reimbursed.
The recommendations received from the Firearms Consultative Committee in the past five years including those relating to the certification of shotguns are listed in the committee's fifth annual report.
Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the differences between the current legislation governing (a) firearms and (b) shotgun certificates; and if he will make a statement; [19027]
(2) what plans he has to bring the legislation governing shotgun certificates into line with the legislation governing firearm certificates; and if he will make a statement. [19026]
Mr. Maclean: Before issuing either a firearm or shotgun certificate, a chief officer of police must consider whether the applicant is, by virtue of a previous conviction, prohibited from possessing firearms and
Column 192
whether the applicant can be permitted to possess firearms without danger to the public safety or to the peace. In addition, a firearm certificate will be refused where the chief officer is not satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for possessing the firearm(s) in question. A shotgun certificate will be refused where the chief officer is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing shotguns. The holder of a firearm certificate must obtain further authority from the police for each additional firearm he wishes to keep. The holder of a shotgun certificate may acquire additional shotguns subject to notifying the police of each acquisition.There are no plans to bring the legislation governing the issue of shotgun certificates in Great Britain completely into line with that for firearm certificates, but the Firearms Consultative Committee in its fifth annual report recommended that a working group be set up to consider the issue of licensing as a whole. The merits of a single certificate to cover both firearms and shotguns will be considered.
Closed Circuit Television
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March, Official Report , column 853 , if Wood Green high road's bid was among those 289 bids for CCTV assessed by the panel as being of good or very good quality. [18800]
Mr. Maclean [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Yes.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March, Official Report , column 853 , how many of the 289 CCTV bids assessed as being of good or very good quality were from London. [19374]
Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of claimants under (a) the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and (b) the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority lived in London in the last year for which figures are available. [19392]
Mr. Maclean [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Definitive records are not available centrally. However, such records as are available suggest that in the year1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 about 12.5 per cent. of the claims registered by CICA had a London address. The only figures available in respect of CICB relate to the period December 1993 to March 1994, when about 8 per cent. of the claims registered appear to have had a London address.
Police National Computer
Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to private sector investment in the operation and maintenance of the police national computer. [19153]
Mr. Maclean: I refer the right hon. Member tothe reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton
Column 193
(Mr. Cohen) on 8 March 1995, Official Report ,columns 185 86 .Miscarriages of Justice
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers about the cost of police investigations into alleged and proven miscarriages of justice in the last five years. [19040]
Mr. Maclean: None. However, we are due shortly to discuss with the association the results of a survey of the costs of a small sample of recently completed
Column 194
investigations, based on information supplied to the Home Office by the police forces concerned.Crime Rates
Mr. Straw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each OECD country for which data are available the total of recorded crime in 1979, 1987 and 1993, with an index for each country where 1979=100. [18898]
Mr. Maclean [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The readily available information on crimes recorded by the police in OECD countries is provided in the table:
Column 193
Crimes<1> recorded by the police in OECD countries<2>
1979 1987 1993
|Number |Index |Number |Index |Number |Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia<3> |642,066 |100 |1,070,367 |167 |<4>1,273,948|198
Austria |330,132 |100 |391,291 |119 |493,786 |150
Belgium |- |- |293,631 |- |388,150 |-
Canada |1,855,271 |100 |2,368,956 |128 |2,736,096 |147
Denmark |355,054 |100 |524,323 |148 |546,894 |154
Finland |192,979 |100 |317,290 |164 |385,985 |200
France |2,330,566 |100 |3,170,970 |136 |3,881,894 |167
Germany |3,533,802 |100 |4,444,108 |126 |<5>6,750,613|-
Greece |- |- |303,182 |- |- |-
Ireland |64,057 |100 |85,358 |133 |98,979 |155
Italy |1,103,536 |100 |1,867,035 |169 |2,253,303 |204
Japan |1,289,405 |100 |1,577,954 |122 |1,801,150 |140
Netherlands |615,700 |100 |1,042,120 |169 |1,279,460 |208
New Zealand |- |- |406,627 |- |502,460 |-
Norway |109,991 |100 |198,877 |181 |248,001 |225
Portugal |- |- |251,588 |- |339,662 |-
Sweden |698,171 |100 |949,367 |136 |1,031,015 |148
United Kingdom
England/Wales |2,536,700 |100 |3,892,200 |153 |5,526,300 |218
Northern Ireland |54,262 |100 |63,860 |118 |66,228 |122
Scotland |346,680 |100 |481,230 |139 |543,013 |157
USA<6> |12,249,500 |100 |13,508,700 |110 |14,141,000 |115
<1> More serious offences. In many countries defined as against the "penal code" or "criminal code" and
excludes less serious crimes-misdemeanours. The range of offences covered differ between each country and
some countries acknowledge double counting in the collection of such statistics. Comparisons based upon
absolute figures are therefore misleading. For certain countries, it is additionally known that in the
period 1979-87, improvements in data quality and changes in the penal code have affected these statistics.
<2> No information available for Iceland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Spain, Turkey and Switzerland.
<3> Data for financial years 1979 = 1979-80 etc.
<4> 1992 figures.
<5> Includes East Germany in 1993.
<6> FBI uniform crime index covering murder and non-negligent manslaughter, manslaughter by negligence,
forcible rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny-theft of motor vehicles, theft and arson, but excludes
offences such as drug, which are included in other countries' figures.
Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs
Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (a) name, (b) occupation or former occupation, (c) place of residence and (d) annual honorarium, allowance or payment of each member of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs; and if he will make a statement. [19016]
Mr. Michael Forsyth: The current members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and their occupations are as follows: Mrs. J. Barlow, Projects Manager, Aberlour Childcare Trust, Stirling.
Mr. R. Bartle, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, London. Dr. W. Clee, General Medical Practitioner, Cardiff.
Dr. M. Donmall, Unit Director, University of Manchester Drug Research Unit.
Column 194
Dr. A. Duxbury, Professor of Oral Medicine, University of Manchester.Professor G. Edwards, Chairman, National Addiction Centre, London.
Mrs. J. Faugier, Research Fellow, North West Regional Health Authority, Warrington.
Professor D. Grahame-Smith, (Chairman), Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Oxford University.
Dr. J. Greenwood, Consultant Psychiatrist, Community Drug Problem Service, Edinburgh.
Ms K. Hager, Director, Exeter Drugs Project.
Mr. P. Hayes, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, South East London Probation Service.
Mr. K. Hellawell, Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Police. Ms L. Hewitt, Project Manager, the Stockwell Project, London. Mr. M. Hindson, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Greater Manchester Probation Service.
Column 195
Professor R. Jones, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liverpool.Ms R. Joyce, County Advisor for Health Education, Cambridge. Mr. J. Kay, Managing Director, Healthwise Ltd. Liverpool. Dr. M. Keen, Consultant Psychiatrist, Adfer Addiction Unit, Cardiff.
Dr. D. Kennedy, Consultant Physician, Glasgow.
Professor M. Lader, Professor of Psychopharmacology, University of London.
Mr. A. Massam, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, London.
Mr. M. Narayn Singh, Public Education Officer, Manchester City Council.
Professor W. Ollis, Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Birmingham.
Mr. K. Patel, Deputy Director, the Bridge Project, Bradford. Dr. D. Paterson, Consultant Psychiatrist, Omagh.
Mr. A. Ramsay, Regional Advisor in Health Education, Glasgow. Dr. S. Ruben, Consultant Psychiatrist, Liverpool Drug Dependency Clinic.
Viscountess Runciman, (independent), London.
Mr. I. Sherwood, Senior Speciality Nurse, Avon Drug Problem Team, Bristol.
Professor G. Stimson, Director, Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London.
Professor J. Strang, Consultant Psychiatrist, Addiction Research Unit, London.
Dr. D. Temple, Director of Post-Graduate Pharmaceutical Studies for the NHS in Wales, the University of Wales, Cardiff.
Mr. D. Turner, Former Director, Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, London.
Mr. E. Unsworth, Deputy Director, Social Services, Cambridgeshire County Council.
Mr. P. Walker, Headteacher, the Abbey School, Faversham. Dr. T. Waller, General Medical Practitioner, Ipswich.
Official records of members' places of residence are not kept but, so far as we know, most live in the locality in which they work. They serve in a voluntary capacity and receive only reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses.
Drugs
Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those mines where the British Coal occupational health service currently maintains responsibility for the holding of pethidine; in which mines pethidine is currently (a) held and (b) not held; and if he will make a statement. [19389]
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Mines are covered by a group licence issued by the Home Office to enable them to hold certain controlled drugs, including pethidine, on site for emergency use.
The British Coal Corporation's occupational health service currently maintains responsibility for the supply of pethidine to the following mines:
Annesley/Bentinck
Asfordby
Bilsthorpe
Calverton
Clipstone
Daw Mill
Ellington
Francis
Gascoigne Wood
Hatfield
Column 196
HarworthKellingley
Longannet
Maltby
Markham
North Selby
Point of Ayr
Prince of Wales
Riccall
Rossington
Stillingfleet
Thoresby
Tower
Welbeck
Wistow
Whitemoor
At present, all these mines hold pethidine on site.
British Coal has no responsibility for occupational health services at the following mines:
Betwys
Coventry
Monktonhall
Silverdale
Trentham/Hem Health
None of these mines currently holds pethidine on site.
Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the legislative differences relating to drugs which are classified as schedule 3 as compared with those classified as schedule 4; and if he will make a statement. [19015]
Mr. Michael Forsyth: The differences between the controls on drugs in schedule 3 and schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 are as follows:
possession of schedule 3 drugs requires authority. Possession of schedule 4 drugs does not require authority when they are in the form of medicinal products;
import and export licences are required for schedule 3 drugs but not for schedule 4 drugs;
certain schedule 3 drugs are subject to the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973 which require them to be kept in a locked cabinet or locked receptacle. The remaining schedule 3 and all schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements;
schedule 3 drugs are subject to specific requisitioning requirements; prescriptions must be handwritten by doctors; supply on prescription is subject to certain requirements; and there are labelling requirements for some containers. Schedule 4 drugs are exempted from these requirements.
| Next Section
| Home Page |