You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

Customer Charters

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32838]

Mr. Howard: The UK Passport Agency, the Fire Service College and the Prison Service all have charter standard statements. I have today published a new charter for victims of crime, superseding the charter issued in 1990. No charters, or charter standard statements, have been withdrawn.

Prisons

Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Coopers and Lybrand report into the comparative costs of publicly and privately run prisons. [33086]

Miss Widdecombe: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 13 June, column 232.

Morgan Report

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 April,

18 Jun 1996 : Column: 380

Official Report, column 524, if he will list the local authorities engaged in crime prevention partnership as endorsed in the Morgan report broken down by political control. [32883]

Mr. Maclean: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Secure Establishments (Young People)

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of secure establishments for young people in England and Wales in which a person can be held while awaiting trial or sentence; and where these establishments are sited. [32877]

Miss Widdecombe: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from David Scott to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 18 June 1996:


18 Jun 1996 : Column: 381

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 4 June. [33615]

Mr. Howard: I represented the United Kingdom at the Council in Luxembourg. In accordance with the policy outlined in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 21 May, Official Report, columns 99-101, I was unable to agree to any decisions requiring unanimity in the Council other than those which were purely formal or procedural.

Eleven agenda items, listed in the table, were blocked as a result of the Government's policy of non-co-operation in the European Union. However, I participated fully in negotiations on the substantive issues covered by the agenda. The main matters dealt with at the Council were as follows.

The presidency reported progress in negotiations on the draft external frontiers convention and noted that two major political problems--a role for the European Court of Justice and territorial application of the convention--were outstanding.

The Council examined the three draft directives proposed by the Commission for abolishing frontier controls and giving third country nationals a right to travel in member states, known as the "Monti Package". In addition to the United Kingdom's reserve of substance on these proposals, a number of issues of concern to other member states remain to be settled. The presidency undertook to consider whether negotiation on these instruments should be primarily a matter for the Internal Market Council or the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

The Council agreed that officials should continue work on developing Eurodac, a project to establish a database of asylum seekers' fingerprints.

The Council considered a compromise proposal for conferring on the European Court of Justice optional jurisdiction to interpret the Europol convention. The presidency concluded that this matter would be studied again at the European Council in Florence.

The Council approved a report on the implementation of the Europol drugs unit budget in 1995, and deferred a decision on the development of a computer system for Europol.

The Council considered the question of participation by the European Union in the International Law Enforcement academy in Budapest (ILEA), which is managed jointly by Hungary and the USA. The presidency concluded that, in the light of opposition by France to European Union involvement in the academy, this matter required further thought.

The Council noted progress in the structured dialogue with the central and eastern European states, and a report outlining continuing action by the European Union against drugs in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Council discussed a number of outstanding issues arising from negotiations on the draft Convention on improved extradition procedures, and concluded that further work was required on these points by officials.

18 Jun 1996 : Column: 382

The Council discussed the question of jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice in the draft convention on corruption, and noted progress in drafting a second protocol to the convention on the protection of the Communities' financial interests.

The presidency invited member states' views on the main issues of principle remaining to be settled in relation to the draft convention on service of documents in civil and commercial matters, and referred the text for further work by officials.


Anti-terrorist Legislation

Ms Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the conclusions of Lord Lloyd's review of anti-terrorist legislation. [32923]

Mr. Howard: I understand that Lord Lloyd expects to submit his report by the autumn.

CJD and BSE Research

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Home Office approval of licensing arrangements exist in the case of testing (1) of milk for the purposes of Crentzfeldt-Jakob disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy research; [32924]

    (2) of urine for the purposes of CJD or BSE research. [32925]

Mr. Sackville: Any testing which might cause harm or suffering to animals, including the inoculation of tissues and fluids into laboratory animals, would need authorisation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Next Section Index Home Page