| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Careers Service
Mr. Caton: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future structure and objectives of the Careers Service in Wales. [85089]
Mr. Hain:
The recently published Education and Training Action Group report proposes the establishment of an all-Wales all-age careers information, advice and guidance service by April 2001. Under this proposal, the existing Careers Service companies would be branded together as 'Careers Wales' and would take on responsibility for providing careers information and guidance to adults as well as to young people. The ETAG report also suggests that there may be advantage in reducing the number of Careers Service companies and re-aligning their boundaries to match those of the four economic regions of Wales. These proposals will be for the National Assembly of Wales to consider.
26 May 1999 : Column: 147
The objectives for the Careers Service in Wales were set out in 'Requirements and Guidance for Providers' (March 1995), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These objectives covered the initial five year contracts of the Careers Service companies in Wales. Objectives for future years will be for the National Assembly to determine.
Russian Government (Arms Supplies)
Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Russia about the supply of weapons to countries in the Middle East. [85333]
Ms Quin: During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia from 3-5 March, he discussed with Foreign Minister Ivanov the dangers of arms exports and assistance to countries of concern, including in the Middle East. Officials also discuss weapons exports with the Russians during regular contacts on export control and strategic stability issues.
Pakistan and India
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of Pakistan and India concerning their signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [85331]
Mr. Tony Lloyd: We continue to urge both Pakistan and India to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister raised this issue with senior members of the Indian Government during his visit to India in March.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have a further opportunity to discuss this when he meets the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Sartaj Aziz, in London on 2 June.
Mr. Bercow:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that devices, used to recognise individuals in crowds, have been used by states subject to export restrictions by the UK, where those devices have been exported by the UK. [85212]
Mr. Tony Lloyd:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 April 1999, Official Report, column 566. The Government do not control the export of crowd recognition devices for identifying individuals at rallies or other such events. We are therefore unaware of any exports of such equipment from the UK.
Applications to export controlled goods and technology to all destinations are treated on a case by case basis against our national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The list of countries subject to specific export restrictions, including arms embargoes, is contained in the
26 May 1999 : Column: 148
Summary of Government Commitments regarding the application of Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.
Mr. Burden:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the coroners offices in England and Wales, together with their addresses and the local authority areas covered by each. [85476]
Mr. George Howarth:
I shall write to my hon. Friend with details, but information about coroners and their offices is available from standard published police and court directories.
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications there were between his Department and the Prison Service on 18 and 19 May concerning the proposed visit to Westminster by Mr. Eric Mann. [85456]
Mr. George Howarth
[holding answer 25 May 1999]: Mr. Eric Mann is serving two consecutive six-month prison sentences (one for cultivating and possessing cannabis for personal use, the other for breach of a suspended prison sentence imposed for similar offences) at Prescoed prison.
The Prison Service communicated with the office of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the prisons and probation Minister, on 19 May. This was to alert the Minister to Mr. Mann's temporary release from prison and his intended participation in a press conference during his visit to Westminster.
Subsequently, the Prison Service made a decision to amend the conditions of Mr. Mann's release. Ministers took no part in any of the Prison Service's subsequent decision-making regarding Mr. Mann's licence. They were, however, advised of the decisions made.
Mr. Bercow:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the effect of the Users Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution, and the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, on access to private communications by (a) United Kingdom and (b) foreign surveillance bodies; and if prior request for a warrant will always apply; [85270]
Kate Hoey:
The draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance Convention in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union requires the requesting Member State to obtain authority for interception under its domestic law before making a request. The requested Member State is also required to obtain a warrant in accordance with national law where the
26 May 1999 : Column: 149
subject of the request is on its territory. Any interception on the United Kingdom public telecommunications network will, therefore, continue to require a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The cost of transmitting the intercept product in response to such a request falls to the requesting Member State.
The draft Convention also provides a legal basis for the "service provider" solution to satellite interception. It places an obligation on Member States not to prevent satellite telecommunication operators from making their facilities available for the purpose of complying with an interception warrant issued by another Member State, provided that the subject of the interception is on the territory of the Member State ordering the interception. It does not, however, impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators to make such facilities available.
The draft Convention also contains a number of non-interception provisions. These are not expected to have any significant financial implications for the United Kingdom. Indeed, simpler and quicker procedures for seeking and providing legal assistance under the draft Convention could result in some cost savings.
The draft Council Resolution on the lawful interception of communications in respect of new technologies is intended to supplement an existing 1995 Council Resolution. Its purpose is to make clear that law enforcement agencies have similar interception requirements for traditional telephony and new technologies such as the Internet and satellite communications.
The 1995 Council Resolution has not been incorporated in United Kingdom law, and, therefore, does not place obligations on telecommunications operators. Similarly, the draft Resolution is not legally binding and will not impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators or Internet Service Providers.
The draft Convention and draft Council Resolution remain under Parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses in accordance with the normal procedures. I am aware of representations from Justice and Liberty.
Mr. Clappison:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 27 April 1999, Official Report, column 110 and 18 May 1999, Official Report, column 295, on home detention curfews, how many of the 14 curfewees referred to in the replies committed offences during their period of curfew (a) punishable with imprisonment and (b) punishable with four years or more imprisonment. [85247]
Mr. George Howarth:
Of the 14 curfewees referred to, 13 were charged with offences which were imprisonable. It would not be appropriate to comment on the sentences likely to be imposed by the courts in any individual case. Within the broad statutory limits set by Parliament, sentences are a matter for the courts alone, taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating factors. However, in seven of the cases, the maximum penalty is more than four years' imprisonment.
26 May 1999 : Column: 150
(2) if he will estimate the cost of implementing the (a) User Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution and (b) Mutual Legal Assistance Convention; and what representations he has received on them. [85238]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |