| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 464W—continued
Tomahawk
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk submarine-commanded cruise missiles have been acquired for the Royal Navy in each of the past five years. [91282]
Mr. Ingram: Two bulk purchases of Tomahawk cruise missiles for the Royal Navy have been made. The first batch of 65 was delivered in the years 1991 to 1999 and the second batch of 20 was delivered in the years 2000 and 2001. A third batch of 22 missiles was ordered in early 2002 and these are due to be delivered between September 2003 and April 2004.
Water Abstraction Boreholes
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many water abstraction boreholes (a) in use and (b) licensed but not in use there are on MOD land in (i) Salisbury District, (ii) Kennet District and (iii) West Wiltshire District; and what the six-figure grid references are for each borehole. [95436]
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 6 February 2003]: Project Aquatrine (which will provide water and waste-water services to the Ministry of Defence) has information on 24 boreholes in use, plus one borehole used on an emergency basis; and no boreholes that are licensed but not in use. There may be additional boreholes on Ministry of Defence land, but this information is not held centrally.
I am withholding the locations in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
West Freugh Airfield
Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects an announcement to be made on redundancies at West Freugh airfield and range. [95978]
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence are currently engaged in negotiations with QinetiQ for a Long Term Partnering Agreement for the provision of Test and Evaluation services. Subject to a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations, any announcement on redundancies will be a matter for QinetiQ.
PRIME MINISTER
Iraq
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has discussed with President Bush the issue of oil reserves in Iraq. [96493]
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) during my statement to the House on 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 38.
7 Feb 2003 : Column 465W
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Domestic Violence
Julie Morgan: To ask the Solicitor General what guidance she gives to the Crown Prosecution Service about consulting victims of domestic violence about decisions relating to the prosecutions. [95248]
The Solicitor-General [holding answer 6 February 2003]: I regularly have discussions with the DPP, CPS policy lead on domestic violence and the Area Domestic Violence Co-ordinators about the CPS policy on the prosecution of cases of domestic violence.
The revised domestic violence policy and the guidance issued to prosecutors in November 2001 contain many references to the importance of consultation and seeking the views of the victim. For example, they provide that: consultation and support may be needed to make the prosecution process less difficult for victims; information from the police should be regularly updated with particular emphasis on the victim's/children's safety and views expressed by the victim.
In addition, as in any non-domestic violence case, the Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to take into account views expressed by the victim. Consultation may also take place: in accordance with the Attorney-General's guidelines when the prosecution is considering a plea to a lesser charge; or, as part of the Direct Communication with Victims initiative; or, by way of a Victim Personal Statement.
Mrs. Sally Clark
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Solicitor General what plans she has to investigate the handling by the Crown Prosecution Service of the case of Mrs. Sally Clark. [95592]
The Solicitor-General [holding answer 6 February 2003]: The Court of Appeal has yet to give its detailed judgement in the case of Sally Clark. I will consider whether further investigation into the handling of the case by the CPS is appropriate when I have had the opportunity to study the full Court of Appeal judgment.
Suicide Act
Mr. Plaskitt: To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish her policy on the criteria which she applies when exercising her discretion under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961. [92779]
The Solicitor-General [holding answer 27 January 2003]: Proceedings under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 are reviewed in exactly the same manner as any other prosecution. The decision to prosecute and the Director's decision as to whether he grants consent are taken in the light of all of the evidence available following the investigation conducted by the police, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The code can be viewed at www.cps.gov.uk.
Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 is an offence for which the DPP's consent is required before a prosecution can commence.
7 Feb 2003 : Column 466W
Mrs. Calton: To ask the Solicitor-General what processes will be used to achieve clarification of policy, and to produce guidelines, with respect to section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961. [94596]
The Solicitor-General [holding answer 4 February 2003]: Proceedings under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 are reviewed in exactly the same manner as any other prosecution. The decision to prosecute and the Director's decision as to whether he grants consent are taken in the light of all of the evidence available following the investigation conducted by the police, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The code can be viewed at www.cps.gov.uk.
Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 is an offence for which the DPP's consent is required before a prosecution can commence.
Tom Sugden
Janet Anderson: To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions the trial of Tom Sugden at Burnley Crown Court was adjourned; what the reasons were for the adjournments; why the trial was abandoned on Monday 13 January; and if she will make a statement. [92661]
The Solicitor-General [holding answer 27 January 2003]: The trial of Thomas Sugden was concluded at Burnley Crown Court on 13 January 2003 having been adjourned on three previous occasions.
On 14 February 2002, the first occasion, the prosecution applied for an adjournment of the trial due to the unavailability of three prosecution witnesses, two of whom were sick and one who was working abroad. The case was re-listed to be heard during the week commencing 8 April 2002. The second adjournment was generated by the Crown Court at Burnley, in common with other Crown Courts in the country closing as a mark of respect following the death of the Queen Mother. The matter was briefly mentioned at court on 17 April 2002, when a judicial direction was given that the matter be placed in the court list for 1 July 2002.
The third adjournment was due to a civilian prosecution witness failing to attend to give evidence on the scheduled start date for trial of 2 July 2002. The reason provided to the court was that she was unwell and anxious as she was, at this time, heavily pregnant. A sick note to cover her absence was produced. The prosecution had indicated that they would proceed without this witness but defence counsel indicated that he wished to cross examine this witness and her attendance was therefore essential. The other prosecution witnesses who were distressed by the need to adjourn again were given full explanations which were personally conveyed to them by representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Following two pre-trial reviews at which the availability and willingness of witnesses to attend were resolved, the matter was adjourned to a further trial date of 13 January 2003. One of the reasons for so lengthy an adjournment was because of the expected date of confinement of the above mentioned prosecution witness.
7 Feb 2003 : Column 467W
The matter commenced on 13 January 2003 before His Honour Judge Cornwall at Burnley Crown Court. The principal prosecution witness gave her evidence. The trial Judge expressed his concern in relation to this evidence, and the Crown reviewed the case. In the light of these developments it became apparent that the proceedings would be unlikely to generate a realistic prospect of a conviction and the case was therefore terminated. Prosecuting Counsel held an immediate conference with the the prosecution witnesses explaining to them why such a step had had to be taken.
WORK AND PENSIONS
Child Support
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average maintenance payment made under the Child Support Acts by husbands whose ex-wives are (a) on benefits and (b) in work was in each of the last three years. [96403]
Malcolm Wicks: Information to answer this question is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the table.
| Parent with care status | 1999–2000 | 2000–01 | 2001–02 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent with care in receipt of benefit | |||
| Income support | 5.63 | 5.95 | 5.79 |
| Family credit | 8.56 | — | — |
| Job seekers allowance (income based) | 3.44 | 3.26 | 3.84 |
| Parent with care not in receipt of benefit | |||
| Others | 9.45 | 9.80 | 9.91 |
| Working families tax credit | 11.00 | 12.92 | 13.40 |
Notes:
1. Figures are taken from 5 per cent. samples of all live and assessed cases of quarterly scans of the CSCS and so are subject to sampling variation.
2. Figures are for full maintenance assessments only.
3. Both regular and arrear accounts have been used.
4. The averages take account of cases assessed at zero.
5. The averages also take account of cases assessed to pay maintenance, but where payments are not made.
6. Figures do not include direct pay cases.
7. The status is taken as the status of the parent with care at the end of the financial
year.
8. The years used for analysis are financial years (April-March).
9. The "Others" and WFTC category contain employed cases.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |