| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA93
Written Answers
Friday 20 April 2007
Armed Forces: Bowman
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is the training budget for the Bowman Combat Infrastructure Platform Programme, broken down by (a) initial training; (b) regular continuation training; and (c) training for capability additions. [HL3116]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The training budget for the Bowman Combat Infrastructure Platform is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Bowman contract was awarded to General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd on a firm-price basis for the complete system, including initial conversion training, following a competitive tendering exercise. There was no requirement to provide discrete firm prices for the various elements of the Bowman Combat Infrastructure Platform (BCIP) programme.
BCIP continuation training will be delivered using existing military training establishments and schools, as well as new generic training facilities. Training for the less specialist courses at all levels has been absorbed into existing course syllabi by the appropriate arms and service directors. Consequently, the department is unable to break out specific BCIP training costs.
Training for capability additions will be an ongoing requirement throughout the in-service life of Bowman. For the next capability addition, BCIP5, General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd is contracted to develop the additional training material.
Compensation: Home Office
Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How much the Home Office has paid out in compensation to employees in each of the past five years. [HL2821]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 6 March (WA 27).
Crime: Fraud
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.
One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2746]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA96
Crime: Recordable Offences
Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they will provide a breakdown of those recordable offences entered on the police national computer committed in each of the last five years by the nationality of the offender. [HL2824]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Not all the records on the police national computer include the nationality of the offender. A five-year breakdown of those that do include nationality could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Crime: Sex Tourism
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What representations they have received from other states, non-governmental organisations and individuals about British citizens or residents travelling overseas for the sexual abuse of minors or for the production of pornography since the coming into force of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996; and how they have responded to such representations. [HL2752]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Enforcement of the law and intelligence gathering about sex offenders is an operational matter for the police. Any information received by the Government about British citizens or residents travelling abroad to abuse children would be brought to the attention of the police for their consideration.
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many convictions there have been by United Kingdom courts of British citizens or residents for sexual offences committed overseas in each year since 1996. [HL2754]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Section 16B of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 make it an offence in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for a British citizen or United Kingdom resident to commit certain acts overseas against a child under 16 (or, in the case of Northern Ireland, under 17).
Because offences are pursued, and therefore recorded, under the United Kingdom equivalent offence, it is not possible to provide statistics for the use of Section 72.
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA97
Demonstrations
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received from the Metropolitan Police any assessment of the costs and benefits of the provisions of Sections 132 to 138 (“Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament”) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. [HL2796]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are the response to the recommendation of the House of Commons Procedure Committee that the Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations and ensure that the laws about access to Parliament are adequate and enforceable. They provide a framework for the commissioner to authorise and consider the management of all demonstrations notified to him in advance in the defined area. This replaces the former requirement laid on him by the sessional order to make sure that passageways to and from Parliament were kept free of obstruction and that no obstruction was allowed to hinder passage of the Lords and Members to and from the House.
Each demonstration is different and has to be risk assessed, and where required a policing operation is put into place. We have not sought an overall cost-benefit assessment.
EU: Holocaust Denial
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 1 February (WA 74), whether they will use their veto in the Council of Ministers to ensure that Holocaust denial is not made a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. [HL2536]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The Government do not intend to make Holocaust denial a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. The Government deplore attempts to deny the Holocaust, including those views expressed in a pseudo-intellectual manner. We understand why some European countries, because of their particular histories, have expressly legislated against Holocaust denial, but successive Governments have taken the view that criminalising Holocaust denial in the UK would represent an unnecessary infringement of freedom of expression. It is of course the case that, if Holocaust denial is expressed in a way that is threatening, abusive, or insulting and incites racial hatred, or is likely to do so, then that would be unlawful under the Public Order Act 1986.
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA98
Female Genital Mutilation
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether any prosecutions have been brought or convictions obtained under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. [HL3024]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): There have been no prosecutions under the 2003 Act. However, educating communities to abandon the practice is the best way forward to break the cycle of mutilation, and the Act is being widely used for that purpose.
There have been no prosecutions or convictions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 in Northern Ireland. The latest available data that the NIO has are for 2004.
There are no records of prosecutions for female genital mutilation on the Scottish Executive Justice Department’s database.
Health: Chaplaincy
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many National Health Service acute trusts in England no longer provide an out-of-hours chaplaincy and spiritual care service; and what alternative arrangements are being made to provide specialist support for the dying in trusts which have discontinued a 24-hours chaplaincy service. [HL2987]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The department does not collect data on National Health Service hospital chaplaincy.
The department remains committed to the guidance NHS Chaplaincy: Meeting the Religious and Spiritual Needs of Patients and Staff, issued to NHS trusts in November 2003 about patients' access to spiritual care, irrespective of their faith or beliefs.
NHS trusts are responsible for delivering religious and spiritual care in a way that meets the diverse needs of their patients. How they do so is a matter for local determination.
Health: Dentistry
Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Which primary care trusts have imposed restrictions on National Health Service dental activities as a result of budgetary pressure; and what restrictions have been imposed by each primary care trust. [HL3123]
20 Apr 2007 : Column WA99
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Primary care trusts (PCTs) award dental providers an annual contract value, payable in equal monthly instalments, in return for an agreed level of service. A PCT can subsequently reduce that contract value only with the agreement of the dental provider or if the agreed service levels are not delivered by the provider. The commissioning of any additional service levels over and above the original contract value is at the discretion of the PCT. The department does not monitor service and contract discussions between PCTs and individual dental providers. PCTs, as the commissioning bodies, are responsible for the management of dental services locally.
Health: Diabetes
Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they have commissioned any studies similar to the recent study by the University of Albany entitled Increased rate of hospitalisation for diabetes and residential proximity of hazardous waste sites; if so, whether they show a statistically significant link between the incidence of diabetes and proximity to hazardous waste sites; and, if not, whether they have plans to commission such a study. [HL3084]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): No research similar to the recent study by the University of Albany has been commissioned and there are no current plans to commission such a study.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |