| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Justice Council
Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice Council held on 23 to 24 November, giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1600]
Miss Widdecombe [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend represented the United Kingdom at the Council which was held in Brussels on 23 November.
The Council agreed as A points, among other things, a draft resolution on the protection of witnesses, a draft decision on monitoring the implementation of texts adopted regarding admission of third country nationals, reports on the activities of the Europol drugs unit during the first half of 1995 and its programme of activities for the first half of 1996, the rules of procedure of the Europol management board, a draft report on simplified extradition procedure and a draft resolution on the status of third country nationals residing legally in the territory of member states of the European Union.
Following discussion, the Council agreed to a joint position on the definition of refugee status, a joint action on airport transit visas, a report on organised crime in 1994, and standard re-admission clauses for mixed agreements with third countries. The Council discussed the question of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the Dublin convention which deals with the determination of the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the EU member states. The Council noted the current situation with regard to the draft external frontiers convention and discussed the challenge represented by drug trafficking. The insolvency convention was opened for signature and signed by 12 member states.
The Council had a full discussion on the issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the Europol convention and on the difficulties for the United Kingdom presented by the draft joint action on racism and xenophobia. The Council also examined the draft protocol to the convention on fraud against the revenues of the European Community and the draft convention dealing with matrimonial matters. A number of issues relating to extradition were considered, and the Council discussed proposals my right hon. and learned Friend put forward to enhance co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
The Council received information from the presidency relating to EU relations with third countries and with the European Parliament in the fields covered by title VI of the treaty of European Union. It also examined certain procedural questions regarding working methods, decision-taking and finance.
Together with his colleagues, my right hon. and learned Friend signed a memorandum of understanding on the legal interception of telecommunications.
Mr. Jamieson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about joint enterprise cases in which a child loses its life. [2308]
28 Nov 1995 : Column: 650
Mr. Maclean:
We have examined the relevant legal provisions to see whether there is any scope for changes to make it easier to secure convictions in joint enterprise cases in which a child dies. We have, however, been unable to identify any option for reform which would not itself create further injustice. The priority must be to obtain sufficient evidence in each case pointing to the guilt of one or both parties. The provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will make it more difficult for those who are guilty of such appalling crimes to hide behind their silence in police interviews and at trial. We will keep the law under review and consider any practical proposals for reform.
Mr. Michael:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to allow the families of (a) all murder victims, (b) parents of adult victims, (c) the adult children of murder victims, (d) the unmarried partners of murder victims and (e) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims who applied for compensation under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn to make a new application under the terms of the new scheme he proposes to implement from April 1996 under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. [2309]
Mr. Maclean:
All applications received under the former tariff scheme fall to be considered or reconsidered under the terms of the 1990 scheme as the only scheme lawfully in force. To allow applicants in any particular category to withdraw a claim lodged between 1 April 1994 and 5 April 1995 and then reapply under the proposed new scheme would be wrong in principle and anomalous in practice.
Not all applicants in the categories mentioned who were eligible under the former tariff scheme are ineligible under the 1990 scheme. For example, parents of adult victims may have been dependent on their children and thus qualify for an award in respect of that dependency; so too might a common law spouse dependent on the deceased partner. There may be cases where such a claim either fails, or is treated less generously under the 1990 scheme criteria than might be the case under the proposed new tariff scheme. But we cannot reasonably adopt an arrangement whereby applicants since 1 April 1994 can select which scheme they wish to be bound by according to the perceived advantages and disadvantages.
Mr. Michael:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received from the families of murder victims in general and specifically from (a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims, (c) the married partners of murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims, under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2293]
Mr. Maclean
[holding answer 24 November 1995]: A total of 1,246 applications in respect of fatal cases were received under the former tariff scheme. All applications received under that scheme are subject to consideration or reconsideration under the 1990 scheme. That has meant
28 Nov 1995 : Column: 651
making changes to the data held and dispersing the case papers to board members and staff for assessment. A precise analysis of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, and the other data requested, are not therefore readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate effort. The board has, however, provided the following summary of the position.
A total of 1,192 fatal applications were outstanding when the tariff scheme was withdrawn. About a third were from a parent or parents, some 30 per cent. were in respect of children under 18 years of age, about 20 per cent. were from children aged 18 or over, and some 15 per cent. were from spouses, whether formally married or regarded as a spouse in common law.
Mr. Michael:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was paid out to the families or murder victims in total and specifically to (a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims and (c) the unmarried partners or murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2295]
Mr. Maclean
[holding answer 24 November 1995]: The board advises that precise figures are not readily available.
Its estimate is that 40 applications resulted in provisional payment of awards, including funeral expenses, totalling some £200,000.
Mr. Michael:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total cost involved if all applications received from the families of murder victims and specifically from (a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims, (c) the unmarried partners of murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims were to be paid under the terms set out in the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2294]
Mr. Maclean
[holding answer 24 November 1995]: Taking account of the proportion of cases which might have failed the eligibility criteria--perhaps 20 per cent.--the total cost might have been of the order of £5 million. Assuming that 250 eligible applicants were from the specific categories mentioned, the estimate for these is in the range £1.25-£2.5 million.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual saving to business which will accrue from (a) the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and (b) the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 1995. [2024]
Mr. Kirkhope
[holding answer 27 November 1995]: It is estimated that the proposal in the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order to remove the requirement for an accountant to be present when the Tote is operated will result in cost savings of £260,000 a year. In addition the industry estimates that inter-track betting will increase turnover by 10 to 15 per cent. in its first year of operation. Details of compliance costs are given in the explanatory memorandum.
28 Nov 1995 : Column: 652
No direct cost savings were anticipated as a consequence of the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order. The industry expected that the order would create new market opportunities and resultant financial benefits although these could not be quantified.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs to public funds involved in preparing the cost-benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum for (a) the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and (b) the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 1995. [2023]
Mr. Kirkhope
[holding answer 27 November 1995]: Details of costs and benefits were sought as part of the public consultation exercise on the proposed Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |