| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Perjury
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law of perjury. [7918]
Mr. Michael: We have no plans to do so at present. Criminal sanctions are already available in appropriate cases. A person knowingly making a false report to the police which tends to show that they have evidence material to police inquiry may be charged with wasting police time and could be liable on conviction to imprisonment up to six months or a fine of £1,000. A person making a statement to a court which is material to the proceedings and which they know to be false may be liable to conviction for perjury and could face a prison sentence for up to seven years. The more serious common law offence of perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice is committed where a person acts or embarks upon a course of conduct which has a tendency to, and is intended to, pervert the course of justice. It is a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide in any such case whether there is sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution and whether it would be in the public interest. There are around 200 prosecutions for perjury a year, of which a high proportion of cases result in convictions, as indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 26 June, Official Report, column 574.
Wrongful Convictions
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 May, Official Report, column 111, how many outstanding claims for financial compensation for individuals found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted have been outstanding for (a) more than 12 months, (b) more than two years, (c) more than three years, (d) more than four years and (e) more than five years. [7395]
Mr. Michael
[holding answer 14 July 1997]: There is a total of 149 cases outstanding where, following the reversal of a conviction, a decision to pay compensation has been taken in principle but the claim has yet to be settled. Of these, (a) 11 have been outstanding for more than 12 months; (b) 102 for more than two years; (c) six for more than three years; (d) one for more than four years; and (e) 16 for more than five years. By far the most significant factors in delaying a settlement in these cases
16 Jul 1997 : Column: 182
have been either delay by applicants or by their representatives in submitting final claims, or reluctance on their part to accept the offers made.
The figure at (b) include 93 claims stemming from the quashing of a high number of drink-driving convictions in Greater Manchester following possible contamination of blood samples.
I regret that in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 22 May, a number of these cases were overlooked: at that time the total number outstanding was in fact not 52, as given in my reply, but 106, in 54 of which representations had yet to be received from the claimants. Of the 93 such cases currently outstanding, representations are awaited from 41 and the remaining 52 are being processed.
Dr. Whitehead:
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many next steps executive agencies have regional administrative structures; and, of these, how many have boundaries that coincide with those of the Government Offices for the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [8437]
Mr. Kilfoyle:
There are 37 executive agencies that have regional administrative structures. Of these, three have boundaries that coincide with the Government Offices for the Regions. They are Social Security Benefits Agency, Social Security Child Support Agency and Social Security Contributions Agency.
Dr. Whitehead:
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what procedures exist concerning the accountability of next steps executive agencies to Ministers for the process of determining the content of next steps agency framework document; and if he will make a statement. [8349]
Mr. Kilfoyle:
It is the responsibility of the departmental Minister to set the framework within which the department's executive agencies are to operate and therefore to determine which matters are to be assigned to a Chief Executive under the terms of an Agency's framework document.
16 Jul 1997 : Column: 183
Mrs. Anne Campbell:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to minimise the erosional impact of sheep in the hills. [7839]
Mr. Morley:
Erosion is a widespread, natural process which may be exacerbated by a range of causes, including land use practice, atmospheric pollution and recreational activities. Earlier this year MAFF commissioned a three year project to identify the precise causes of upland erosion and propose potential solutions. Agri-environment schemes including Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Moorland Scheme and (in England only) Countryside Stewardship are contributing to the positive maintenance of upland habitats, including through the encouragement of extensive grazing and improved management practices.
Mr. Mullin:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to secure compliance with the prohibition on the routine tail docking of piglets in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994; and if he will make a statement. [7857]
Mr. Morley:
The docking of piglets' tails is not unlawful under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 where there is evidence on the farm that injuries to animals are otherwise likely to occur. We are currently examining the application of these rules to make sure that the objective of protecting pig welfare is properly met.
Mr. Martyn Jones:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has commissioned into (a) segregation and (b) labelling of genetically modified food; what estimate he has made of the time scale by which (a) and (b) will be feasible; and if he will make a statement. [8499]
Mr. Rooker:
The safety of foods produced using genetic modification is assessed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and is underpinned by scientific research work carried out by the Department. I see no need for the Government to commission research into the segregation or labelling of genetically modified food. The Government is pressing at European level for all foods which may contain genetically modified ingredients to be clearly labelled whether they have been fully segregated or not.
Mr. Bercow:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require labelling on all foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, informing potential customers to that effect; and if he will make a statement. [8593]
Mr. Rooker:
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 June 1997, Official Report, columns 356-57.
Sir Richard Body:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of beef held in United Kingdom intervention stores have been removed and made inedible. [8638]
16 Jul 1997 : Column: 184
Mr. Rooker:
A total of 254 tonnes of intervention beef taken into UK intervention stores prior to 27 March 1996 has been disposed of by incineration.
Mr. Purchase:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he proposes to make to the Second Report of the Agriculture Committee on Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Other Schemes Under the Agri-Environment Regulation (HC 45 (1996-97)), published on 19 March 1997. [9166]
Mr. Morley:
The Government has today published its response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Agriculture Select Committee's report on these agri-environment schemes. Copies of the publication have been placed in the Library of the House.
Fiona Mactaggart:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to British high commissions and embassies about dealing with appeals and applications for leave to appeal in respect of husbands, wives, fiances and fiancees who were refused admission under the primary purpose rule; and what assessment he has made of how long such applicants will have to wait. [5526]
Mr. Fatchett
[holding answer 7 July 1997]: In cases where an application has been refused solely on primary purpose grounds and an appeal is pending the Home Office will remit the papers to the Entry Clearance Officer for issue of entry clearance, subject to there being no change of circumstances. In cases where no appeal was lodged, posts will issue if further representations are made, subject to no change in circumstances. Where applicants have been refused and an appeal dismissed, applicants may re-apply for entry clearance in the normal way.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |