| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Naturalisation Applications
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many applications for naturalisation were (a) made, (b) decided on and (c) outstanding at the year end; and what was the average time taken to process an application in each year. [106046]
Mrs. Roche: The information requested for naturalisation applications is given in the table.
(7) Information is not available in the form requested, as applications are not always completed in the year of receipt.
27 Jan 2000 : Column: 230W
Currency Counterfeiting
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on Council Decision 1999/C 322/04 (C322 of 10 November 1999), with reference to the (a) manner of legislative implementation in the United Kingdom and (b) consequences for extradition arrangements; [106403]
- (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on UK law of the German initiative on increasing penal sanctions against counterfeiting the euro, set out in document 11302/99 of 5 October 1999; what court of law would try UK cases; and what supreme court would take final appeals. [106429]
27 Jan 2000 : Column: 231W
Mr. Charles Clarke: An amended version of Germany's initiative on increasing penal sanctions against counterfeiting the Euro was "agreed in substance" at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December. The text agreed was similar to that deposited for scrutiny with the House in November (reference: 12585/99). The text did not receive final approval at the Council because a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, held parliamentary scrutiny reservations, and because the European Parliament had not yet given its opinion. The Council hopes to adopt the Framework Decision in March.
The draft Framework Decision, as provisionally agreed in December, contains three main legislative implications for the United Kingdom. First, the United Kingdom would be required to ensure that pre-circulation Euro notes and coins are covered by United Kingdom legislation. This requirement would be met by Part I of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in relation to pre-circulation Euro notes, and Part II of the 1981 Act in relation to pre- circulation Euro coins. The Forgery and Counterfeiting (Protected Coins) Order (1999) designates Euro coins as protected coins within the meaning of Section 27(1) of the 1981 Act. Second, the United Kingdom would be required to take jurisdiction over counterfeiting offences committed in whole or in part within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. The Government intend to meet this requirement through an amendment to Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Finally, should the United Kingdom adopt the Euro, the United Kingdom would be required to take universal jurisdiction for cases of counterfeiting of the Euro (i.e. to empower United Kingdom courts to try offences of counterfeiting of the Euro which had been committed anywhere in the world).
Cases of counterfeiting of the Euro within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, like all other criminal offences, would be tried by United Kingdom courts, and the normal avenues of appeal would apply. I do not expect the draft Framework Decision to have any consequences for the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements.
Mr. Bercow:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which delegation has stated its objection to the UK partial participation in the Schengen Information System; and if he will make a statement. [106423]
27 Jan 2000 : Column: 232W
Mrs. Roche:
It is not our practice to disclose the negotiating positions of member states. Following discussion at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3 December of the United Kingdom's application to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis, no objections remain to the United Kingdom's partial participation in the Schengen Information System.
Jackie Ballard:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria govern decisions by the Prison Service to make out-of-court settlements; and what changes there have been to these criteria in the last 10 years. [106141]
Mr. Boateng:
In deciding to settle out-of-court, the Prison Service will take professional advice as to the likelihood and financial implications of the claim succeeding, and will normally agree to settle out-of-court those cases where it considers the claim is likely to succeed and the proposed settlement figure is at or below the level a court is likely to award. Savings in costs are also taken into account, as are any wider operational or public policy implications of the case.
This approach has not changed over the last 10 years, but in handling claims the Prison Service has of course taken into account developments in the law and the civil justice system. The Woolf reforms to civil justice encourage out of court settlements.
Jackie Ballard:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Prison Service has made out-of-court settlements; and how much was paid, in each case, in each year since 1990. [106142]
Mr. Boateng:
This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Jackie Ballard:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost per inmate of imprisonment in each category of prison for each year since 1990. [106112]
Mr. Boateng:
The average weekly cost per prisoner in each category of prison is listed in the tables in cash terms and at 1992-1993 prices, when the Prison Service became an Executive Agency. Data have been obtained from the Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts.
27 Jan 2000 : Column: 231W
| Cost per prisoner (weekly) | 1990-91 | 1991-92 | 1992-93 | 1993-94 | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local prisons and remand centres | 408 | 437 | 526 | 442 | 449 | 435 | 396 | 369 | 398 |
| Dispersal prisons | 636 | 807 | 816 | 661 | 681 | 656 | 704 | 702 | 753 |
| Category B training | 388 | 438 | 518 | 405 | 417 | 458 | 429 | 396 | 423 |
| Category C training | 317 | 363 | 387 | 337 | 352 | 342 | 329 | 313 | 327 |
| Adult male open | 313 | 316 | 331 | 270 | 283 | 323 | 325 | 310 | 325 |
| Young offender closed | 410 | 452 | 492 | 416 | 417 | 385 | 362 | 346 | 363 |
| Young offender open | 570 | 551 | 634 | 474 | 457 | 477 | 463 | 481 | 491 |
| Young offender remand | -- | -- | -- | 421 | 451 | 421 | 365 | 354 | 402 |
| Male juvenile | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 684 |
| Female establishments (combined) | 583 | 629 | 657 | 541 | 513 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Local female | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 581 | 540 | 544 | 533 |
| Closed female | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 502 | 475 | 467 | 563 |
| Open female | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 385 | 321 | 310 | 333 |
Notes:
1. A dash indicates that no comparable data are available.
2. Data have been obtained from the Annual Report and Accounts in the years concerned.
3. Where weekly figures are not available in the reports they have been derived by dividing the annual outturn by 52 weeks.
4. Establishments have been categorised by their main role only.
27 Jan 2000 : Column: 233W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |