| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Parliamentary Questions
Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, when parliamentary Questions are capable of being answered by either "Yes" or "No", they will make it their practice so to answer them.[HL1641]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. Such a rule could result in misleading answers.
Association of Chief Police Officers: Funding
The Earl of Haddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Williams of Mostyn on 21 April (WA 199), why they omitted to place in the Official Report the table of funds or assistance contributed by each police authority requested for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 that was given to the Association of Chief Police Officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and whether they will now place this table in the Official Report; and [HL1646]
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Williams of Mostyn on 21 April (WA 199), whether they will publish in the Official Report a full copy of the accounts of:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Williams of Mostyn on 16 March (WA 104), whether they were aware in advance of the payment of £10,000 to the setting up of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA); what reasons were given by the Association of Chief Police Officers, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, when requesting the funds; to what other trade unions and staff associations does the Home Office contribute financially; and how much has been contributed by the Home Office to CPOSA since the Association of Chief Police Officers became incorporated as a limited company on 1 April 1997. [HL1648]
(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers, England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and
(b) the Association of Chief Police Officers, Scotland; for the last year for which the accounts are available; and [HL1647]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): In my Written Answer on 21 April (WA 199), I explained to the noble Lord that the contributions to the costs of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) secretariat were made under the common police service funding arrangements. The funding arrangements for the common police services have changed in recent years. In 1994-95 the police authorities' contribution was 49 per cent. of the total net cost of common police services. This was apportioned between police authorities on the basis of a per capita charge based on the authorised establishment of each force. From 1995-96 to 1997-98, the costs of common police services were taken into account when the level of police grant was set for police authorities. From 1996-97, police authorities have made voluntary contributions towards the costs of the ACPO secretariat.
I refer the noble Lord to my Written Answer on
2 April 1998 (WA 64) in respect of the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and my noble friend Lord Sewel's Written Answer on 1 April 1998 (WA 35) in respect of the Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland, concerning the most recent accounts for these two organisations. This remains the most recent information available.
The payment of £10,000 made by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to the costs of setting up the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association is a matter for ACPO.
The Home Office contributes to the salaries of national officials and some running costs of the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales, to similar costs of the Police Federation of England and Wales and separately to the individual constituent bodies of the staff side to the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom, i.e. the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association, the Superintendents' Associations
of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the
The Home Office will contribute £2,000 towards the costs of CPOSA in connection with its staff side activities of the Police Negotiating Board in 1998-99.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Europol Convention has been agreed, as have two related protocols: one on the interpretation of the convention, by way of preliminary rulings, by the European Court of Justice; and one of the privileges and immunities of Europol, its organs and staff. None of these instruments is yet in force as they first need to be ratified by all member states of the European Union, some of which have not yet quite completed the necessary parliamentary procedures.
These instruments have been proposed by successive presidencies of the European Union, not by the Commission which, under the Maastricht Treaty, has no right of initiative in respect of justice and home affairs matters. The parliamentary procedure for ratification of the Europol Convention and both related protocols required draft Orders in Council to be approved by each House of Parliament. Such orders are subject to affirmative resolution. The orders relating to the Europol Convention and the Protocol on Preliminary Rulings by the European Court of Justice were considered in another place on 3 December 1996 by a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, and on the Floor of this House on 9 December 1996. The order relating to the protocol on privileges and immunities was debated in another place by a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 4 December 1997 and on the Floor of this House on 15 December 1997. Records of all the above proceedings were published in the Official Report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which conventions or protocols relating to Europol have (a) been agreed; (b) are in force; and (c) have been proposed by the European Commission; and in respect of each, what have been, or are expected to be, the parliamentary procedures used for their ratification, together with the relevant dates; and what relevant reports or proceedings relating thereto have been published and made available to the public.[HL1669]
What are the names and offices of any United Kingdom representatives of the committee of officials authorised by Article K4 of the Treaty of Maastricht
11 May 1998 : Column WA99
- in preparation for, and providing in respect of, any matter of justice and home affairs; and to whom are their reports and minutes made available.[HL1671]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The United Kingdom representative on the committee set up under Article K4 of the Treaty on European Union is Mr. Timothy Walker, Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office.
The treaty provides that the committee's task is to give opinions for the attention of the Council and to contribute to the preparation of the Council's discussions in the areas referred to in Article K1 as matters of common interest in the fields of justice and home affairs and in the areas referred to in Article 100c of the European Communities Treaty (visas). Reports and other documents discussed by the committee are normally submitted through the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The public may apply to the Council for copies of the documents, and any such applications will fall to be considered under the relevant Council decision. The calendar of meetings is now available on the internet, and work is in progress to make the agendas of K4 meetings and other papers available in the same way.
Motoring Offences: Convictions
Viscount Simon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- For the most recent five-year period for which details are available, how many drivers were convicted of:
and what was the annual total of convictions.[HL1637]
(a) one offence;
(b) two offences;
(c) three offences;
(d) four or more offences;
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Such information as is available is given in the table. This relates to the number of convictions for summary motoring offences. A breakdown to show how many persons were convicted of different numbers of offences is not available for Scotland or Northern Ireland, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost for England and Wales for a five-year period.
However, a small sample of cases in which convictions for summary motoring offences were recorded in the London area in 1996 has been examined. Of these, 33 per cent. involved one conviction,
32 per cent. two convictions, 22 per cent. three convictions and 13 per cent. four or more convictions. The figures relate to the number of convictions at a single court appearance. It is not possible to analyse the number of offences attributable to individual drivers who many have appeared in court more than once.
England and Wales Scotland (provisional) Northern Ireland
1992 1,525,440 102,433 20,787
1993 1,483,036 93,108 21,863
1994 1,489,069 94,175 21,474
1995 1,497,050 91,029 20,102
1996 1,454,034 85,050 18,147
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page