Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): The Government wish to take steps to prevent the ordeal experienced by some victims of rape and other offences who have been personally cross-examined in court by unrepresented defendants. Therefore we have undertaken a review into whether the prohibition on the cross-examination of child witnesses by unrepresented defendants in cases of sexual offences, violence and cruelty, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, should be extended to other cases.
In light of that review, my right honourable friend concluded that it would be right for a discretionary scheme prohibiting unrepresented defendants from cross-examining vulnerable victims to be available to the courts for use in appropriate circumstances. Where a prohibition was imposed, cross-examination could only be conducted by a legal representative of the defendant.
Details of how the scheme would work, including the offences to which it should apply, will be considered further as part of the wide-ranging review of court procedures for vulnerable witnesses which was announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, the Member for Penrith and the Borders, on 23 January. This will enable the scheme to be developed in a co-ordinated way, alongside other issues covered by that review.
It is vital to encourage witnesses to come forward to give evidence against offenders and the Government have continually introduced measures to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses by the criminal justice system. A discretionary scheme to prevent cross-examination by unrepresented defendants in appropriate cases is consistent with the Government's approach and will provide a valuable addition to existing witness protection measures.
Viscount Dilhorne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: I am delighted to announce that the following eight projects have been selected as pathfinders:
Fire Stations: Cornwall County Fire Brigade Lancashire County Fire Brigade Greater Manchester County Fire Service North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
Training: Avon Fire Brigade, Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service and Somerset Fire Brigade (joint project) South Wales Fire Service
Communications: Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service
Each of these projects will receive up to £70,000 in financial assistance in 1997-98 towards consultancy costs incurred by the brigades in taking them forward. The experience of these pathfinder projects will also assist the fire service generally to take full advantage of the potential of the private finance initiative to help meet brigades' capital requirements.
A total of 21 projects were submitted by fire authorities for consideration for financial assistance as pathfinders. This was an excellent response and clearly demonstrates the willingness of the fire service to consider positively and imaginatively how private finance can help meet its needs. We shall continue to provide advice and assistance to all brigades in exploiting the initiative.
Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1997
My right honourable friend is pleased to report implementation of the first deregulatory changes to the casino regime since the 1968 Act.
Following approval by Parliament on 6 March, he made the Deregulation (Casinos) Order, which comes into force on 3 April.
This will allow casinos in England and Wales to provide alcohol after midnight, until 3 a.m. in London, and 2 a.m. elsewhere.
In casinos in Great Britain, it also reduces from 48 to 24 hours the waiting period before new members may take part in the gaming.
The Deregulation (Debit Cards) Order 1997
The order has now been cleared by the Deregulation Committees, and awaits Parliamentary approval. It would allow acceptance of payment by debit cards.
The Second Casino Consultation
Advertising, group and postal membership and slot machines
Following initial consultation earlier in 1996, we went out to consultation on 12 November on a package of measures to relax certain other controls on the operation of casinos. The proposals were as follows: Relax the total ban on advertising to allow casinos to give their name, address, telephone number and limited factual information about their facilities in non-national publications, including newspapers and magazines; Allow group membership and postal applications; Permit a maximum of three slot machines per gaming table subject to a discretion for the licensing justices to substitute a lower number on grounds of demand and suitability of the premises; There would be a power to regulate the size of stakes and prizes, though this would not be used initially; Made a number of detailed requirements including certification of manufacturers and agents by the Gaming Board and a monitoring and testing regime.
There was broad support for the advertising proposals. A few organisations were against any relaxation in the controls. However, this is a very modest relaxation, allowing casinos merely to give out information about themselves. My right honourable friend does not believe that necessary protection for the public would be removed by this measure.
Most respondents also supported the proposals for group membership and postal applications. A few were opposed but most were content with the detailed safeguards proposed.
We will prepare draft proposals in the form of a deregulation order.
My right honourable friend is still considering the more extensive proposals for slot machines in casinos. Some concerns have been expressed about the nature of
such machines. However, they are common in casinos throughout the world, usually in substantially greater numbers than we propose. But he considers that such machines must be strictly regulated. More detailed work would be required on the technical specification, monitoring and other arrangements before we could introduce legislation. We will continue our discussions with the Gaming Board and the industry.We proposed to allow casinos in 21 new locations, including London Docklands and a special category of seven conference towns.
Outside London, most of the proposed new areas attracted support or neutrality from their local councils and reasonable support from other local interests. My right honourable friend proposes to remove Peterborough from the list; its council remained opposed and there was also significant other local opposition.
In the London area, most local authorities have welcomed our proposals. Slough is considering its position. My right honourable friend is in further contact with Croydon Council, which has recently sought more information about the implications of permitted area status and its role in the regulatory regime for casinos.
He has taken account of representations in favour of greater casino provision in East London. In addition to Dartford and Redbridge, he intends to designate a permitted area within Docklands, which will put it on a par with other Urban Development Areas within Great Britain.
On the basis of up-to-date information provided by the British Association of Conference Destinations, he proposes to add Milton Keynes and Weston super Mare to the category of conference towns to be designated as permitted areas.
My right honourable friend also proposes to redefine existing permitted areas to reflect local authority boundary changes.
The changes that he wishes to make could be implemented by secondary legislation. Before any new areas are introduced, however, he will need to address the resource, timing and other practical implications.
Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |