| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1652W—continued
Regional Assemblies
Ann Winterton: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed (a) question and (b) preamble on the ballot paper for the referendum on a regional assembly in the North East of England; and what assessment he has made of the Electoral Commission's statement on the proposed referendum question. [188804]
Mr. Raynsford: The form of the question and preamble on the ballot paper for the referendum on a regional assembly in the North East is prescribed by the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003(a) . The question was amended during the passage of the Act to take account of the Electoral Commission's comments and those of others.
Unauthorised Roadside Sales
Bob Russell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce additional measures to enable local authorities more easily (a) to prosecute owners of vehicles and (b) to remove vehicles which are placed for sale on the highway; and if he will make a statement. [187982]
Mr. Morley: I have been asked to reply.
Defra is currently consulting through it's 'Clean Neighbourhoods' document on a raft of measures that will improve the suite of powers available to local authorities in the management of our local environment. These would be taken forward once a suitable legislative opportunity arises. The document includes proposed measures on nuisance vehicles.
The proposal is to create a definition of 'nuisance' vehicle that would include vehicles that were detrimental to the amenity of an area or causing a nuisance. Local authorities would have the power to remove these vehicles immediately and recover the costs of doing so. It would become a prosecutable offence for being responsible for such a vehicle.
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1653W
What constitutes a nuisance or detrimental to the amenity of an area would be clarified in regulations and will be subject to the results of the consultation. Vehicles which are placed on the highway for sale is being considered as part of this process.
Bob Russell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legislation is available to local authorities (a) to prosecute owners of vehicles and (b) to remove vehicles which are placed for sale on the highway; and if he will make a statement. [187983]
Mr. Morley: I have been asked to reply.
Legislative powers available to local authorities currently cover vehicles that are abandoned. The Government recognises the link between abandoned vehicles and other irresponsible or inconsiderate vehicle ownership and is looking to give local authorities more powers to deal with these issues.
Defra is currently consulting through it's 'Clean Neighbourhoods' document on a raft of measures that will improve the suite of powers available to local authorities in the management of our local environment. These would be taken forward once a suitable legislative opportunity arises. The document includes proposed measures on nuisance vehicles.
The proposal is to create a definition of 'nuisance' vehicle that would include vehicles that are detrimental to the amenity of an area or causing a nuisance. Local authorities would have the power to remove these vehicles immediately and recover the costs of doing so. It would become a prosecutable offence for being responsible for such a vehicle.
What constitutes a nuisance or detrimental to the amenity of an area would be clarified in regulations and will be subject to the results of the consultation. Vehicles which are placed on the highway for sale is being closely considered as part of this process.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Pre-trial Reviews
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Solicitor General what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of pre-trial reviews in the magistrates courts. [187946]
The Solicitor-General: Service has played an active, collaborative part in the Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP), an initiative involving criminal justice agencies, and the judiciary, to plan, design and introduce non-legislative case management reforms heralded in the Government's White Paper, Justice for All.
During 2003, ETMP has tested a range of improvements to the pre-trial process in six criminal justice areas. These have included measures designed to ensure that pre-trial hearings in the magistrates' courts are held only where necessary to progress a case to an effective trial.
For example, in Essex, the first Area to introduce changes to the management of magistrates' courts cases, almost all contested cases are progressed outside of
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1654W
formal court hearings by case progression officers based in the courts, the CPS, and the police, working with the local judiciary, and a named contact for the defence.
There has been an independent evaluation of the changes introduced in Essex, which has calculated that this process change could result in a saving of 8,640 hearings in a year, leading to more efficient utilisation of courtroom time; a decrease in ineffective trials; and improved timeliness. Other test areas have introduced similar changes.
Guidance on how cases might be managed most effectively and efficiently from pre-charge through to conclusion, including the good practice and learning points from the ETMP test areas, is now contained within the Criminal Case Management Framework (CCMF). The Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and Baroness Scotland jointly issued the Framework on 21 July 2004. It states that "hearings before the court may take place if there is a material failure likely to affect the proper progress of the case. "
All other remaining criminal justice areas are now planning, designing or implementing similar changes to the process.
TREASURY
Acceptance in Lieu
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (a) museum quality and (b) pre-eminent objects were granted conditional exemption by the Acceptance in Lieu Panel in each year since 1994. [187509]
Dawn Primarolo: Conditional exemption is granted or refused by the Inland Revenue rather than by the Acceptance in Lieu Panel. Exemption depends on the making of an acceptable undertaking in relation to preservation and access as well as on the standard of quality referred to in the question. The Inland Revenue have taken advice on quality from the Acceptance in Lieu Panel in cases where pre-eminent quality is required, following the changes in Finance Act 1998; prior to that the Inland Revenue sought advice directly from appropriate experts.
The available information is as follows: the figures show the number of objects or groups which remain exempt, net of the relatively small number of cases where relief given in the years shown has, subsequently been withdrawn, e.g. following a sale. The year shown is the year in which the exemption claims were finally granted and not the year of death or other transfer which determines the quality standard applicable to the claim.
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1655W
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of (a) museum quality and (b) pre-eminent objects considered by the Acceptance in Lieu Panel were granted conditional exemption in each year since 1994. [187510]
Dawn Primarolo: The Acceptance in Lieu Panel have assessed the quality of objects which were subject to the "pre-eminent" test laid down by Finance Act 1998. Objects subject to the previous test were referred by the Inland Revenue directly to appropriate experts. Formal assessment of quality is the last substantive step in processing a claim, and apart from cases currently being finalised all cases which have reached the relevant quality standard have been granted exemption. The information available for cases rejected by the Revenue's advisers is as follows.
All cases considered up to and including 1999–2000 were subject to the quality standard applicable prior to Finance Act 1998; the split of rejected cases in subsequent; years between that standard and the pre-eminent standard required by Finance Act 1998 is not readily obtainable from the records available.
| Proportion rejected by value | |
|---|---|
| Year | Percentage |
| 1994–95 | 0.2 |
| 1995–96 | 0.2 |
| 1996–97 | 0.5 |
| 1997–98 | 0.4 |
| 1998–99 | 1.3 |
| 1999–00 | 0.9 |
| 2000–01 | 0.2 |
| 2001–02 | 0.8 |
| 2002–03 | 3.0 |
| 2003–04 | 0.4 |
| 2004–05 (to date) | 6.9 |
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1656W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |