8 Apr 1998 : Column: 229
Written Answers to Questions
Wednesday 8 April 1998
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Listed Sporting Events
Sir Raymond Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998, Official Report, column 368, on the Advisory Group on Listed Events, what is the cost of the group to public funds; how many witnesses have been called by the group, and if he will list them; and which member of the group was an expert on Rugby League Football. [37846]
Mr. Chris Smith: The Chairman and members of the Advisory Group on Listed Events were unpaid. Their expenses incurred in travelling to the meetings of the Group were paid from public funds at a cost of £1,499.78. The group heard oral evidence from the following:
- Independent Television Commission:
- Ms Sheila Cassells
- Ms Sarah Thane
- Major Spectator Sport Division, Central Council for Physical Recreation:
- Lord Alexander of Weedon
- David Glencross QC
- Mr. Maurice Lindsay
- Nr. Nigel Hook
- The England and Wales Cricket Board:
- Lord McLaurin of Knebworth
- Mr. Terry Blake
- The BBC:
- Mr. Will Wyatt
- Mr. Jonathan Martin
- Mr. Dominic Morris
- BSkyB:
- Mr. Vic Wakeling
- Mr. Ray Gallegher
- Mr. Jonathan Sykes
- Mr. Phillip Jenner.
The members of the Advisory Group were appointed not for their knowledge of particular sports but to represent the interests of the general viewing public. All of the members did, however, have a good, general knowledge of sporting issues and were provided with appropriate background information on specific sports events.
Mr. Vaz:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to make a final decision on the listing of A and B grade sporting events for terrestrial television. [37917]
Mr. Chris Smith:
The Advisory Group on Listed Events announced its recommendations to me on 20 March. These recommendations included the proposal
8 Apr 1998 : Column: 230
that the list maintained under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996 should be made up of Group A and B events, these classifications defining the extent of the protection for television coverage of these events on generally available, terrestrial channels. I shall make my final decisions on this proposal, and on the events to be included on the list, when I have fully considered the implications of the Group's report. I hope to do so around the middle of May.
Mrs. Humble:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Eyre review of the future of lyric theatre in London will be made public. [38845]
Mr. Chris Smith:
I have been informed by Sir Richard Eyre that his review of the future of lyric theatre in London will be submitted to me by mid-May; the slight slippage on the original timetable is due to Sir Richard's work commitments. I have undertaken to publish the report shortly after I receive it. Publication will then be followed by consultation.
Mr. Dafis:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the current regulatory regime governing advertising during children's television programmes. [38302]
Mr. Fisher:
The Independent Television Commission maintains and enforces a code of advertising standards and practice for commercial broadcasters, which includes detailed guidance on advertising and children. This guidance is reviewed by the Commission from time to time taking into account representations and available research as appropriate. The most recent review was conducted in 1997.
Mr. Kemp:
To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Crown Prosecution Service has given to the implications of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v W and another; and what arrangements exist for liaison with the Inland Revenue about criminal cases with a tax aspect. [38837]
The Attorney-General:
In the proceedings to which my hon. Friend refers the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) examined the respective of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Inland Revenue to pursue criminal proceedings. It confirmed that the Inland Revenue's common law power to prosecute is ancillary to, supportive of and limited by their duty to collect taxes. In contrast, the Crown Prosecution Service's statutory duty to take over and conduct criminal proceedings is free-standing, unconfined (for the purposes of the particular case) and reflects much wider public interest concerns and objectives. Accordingly, there is no logical inconsistency in the Crown's position if the Crown Prosecution Service prosecute in circumstances where the Revenue have decided not to.
8 Apr 1998 : Column: 231
This ruling accorded with the existing understanding of the Crown Prosecution Service and Inland Revenue as to their respective roles in relation to criminal investigation and prosecution and does not require any change of policy or practice on the part of either. Nor does it affect the position of those individuals who co-operate with the Inland Revenue on what is commonly referred to as 'the Hansard practice' or otherwise. Primary responsibility for investigation and prosecution in relation to alleged tax evasion rests with the Inland Revenue; proceedings brought by the Crown Prosecution Service will ordinarily encompass charges relating to tax evasion only in circumstances where that is incidental to allegations of non-fiscal criminal conduct. In such circumstances the Crown Prosecution Service and Inland Revenue liaise closely together. The arrangements for such liaison have recently been strengthened by the establishment of the 'Convention between Prosecuting Authorities to provide arrangements for ensuring effective co-ordination of decision making and handling in related cases which are the responsibility of different authorities'. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and Inland Revenue became signatories to that Convention when it was established on 11 February 1998. A copy of the Convention has been lodged in the Library of the House.
In R v W and others the applicants were charged on 27 July 1995 with offences of conspiracy to obtain property by deception (later changed to conspiracy to defraud) and conspiracy to commit false accounting in connection with the affairs of companies with which they were associated. The proceedings were transferred to the Crown Court on 6 November 1995. The prosecution case at this stage was that the motive for the alleged false accounting was partly to conceal the removal of company funds for purposes other than tax and partly the evasion of tax. The case in relation to false accounting was subsequently narrowed to allege only tax evasion. The Inland Revenue had, prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings, decided that its own inquiries should be pursued in relation to unpaid tax. This in turn led, in 1997, to a negotiated settlement of unpaid tax with the companies concerned.
The negotiation between Inland Revenue and the companies concerned was quite independent of the criminal proceedings although all parties were aware of their existence. Lord Justice Rose said in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal:
Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Attorney-General if the provisions in the Audit Commission Bill [Lords] relating to studies into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of bodies subject to audit by the Commission permit (a) medical files containing health personal data processed by an NHS body to be used as part of a study into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness, (b) data matching
8 Apr 1998 : Column: 232
studies with respect to any personal data held by a local authority and (c) medical files from one NHS body to be studied (i) in conjunction with similar files from another NHS body and (ii) in relation to files from a local authority. [38171]
"In any event we reject the suggestion that, because the prosecution case against both applicants on false accounting was previously based partly, but is now based solely, on tax evasion, this constitutes such a change that [the applicant], at the time of settlement by the companies was misled".
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |