Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Armed Forces: Premature Voluntary Retirement Applications

Lord Swinfen asked Her Majesty's Government:

Lord Burlison: In the year to December 1999, the latest period for which figures are currently available, 7,963 members of the Regular Army applied for Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR). We would expect that approximately 25 per cent of soldier PVR applications will be withdrawn subsequently.

Lord Swinfen asked Her Majesty's Government:

Lord Burlison: On 1 January 2000, 1,568 Royal Naval personnel had submitted application to leave the Service earlier than the end of their commission or engagement.

Lord Swinfen asked Her Majesty's Government:

Lord Burlison: On 1 January 2000, 347 Royal Marine personnel had submitted application to leave the Service earlier than the end of their commission or engagement.

Defence Medical Services: Medical Consultants

Lord Swinfen asked Her Majesty's Government:

1 Feb 2000 : Column WA28

Lord Burlison: As at 1 December 1999, there were 174 accredited medical consultants in the regular Defence Medical Services against an operational requirement of 443.

Mr Mike Tyson's Entourage:Leave to Enter UK

Lord Sandberg asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Why a member of Mr Mike Tyson's entourage, who is said to have served a term of imprisonment for manslaughter, was allowed to enter the United Kingdom.[HL629]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): All applications from Mr Mike Tyson's entourage, for leave to enter the United Kingdom, were decided in accordance with the Immigration Rules and took account of all factors relevant to each individual case.

General Pinochet

Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Why the Home Secretary is prepared to consider representations from Amnesty International and other groups about the extradition of General Pinochet when the party responsible for making the application for extradition, namely the Kingdom of Spain, has indicated that it will be content if the Home Secretary decides not to extradite General Pinochet; and[HL670]

    Why the Home Secretary is prepared to consider representations from different groups about the decision on the possible extradition of General Pinochet to Spain when he did not carry out any such consultation with victims of terrorism when he refused to extradite Roisin McAliskey to Germany.[HL671]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not the normal practice of the Home Secretary in extradition cases to invite representations from parties other than those directly concerned--i.e. the accused and the requesting state--although such representations are sometimes volunteered and, where relevant, considered. The reason why, on this occasion, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary allowed time for representations, and specifically invited representations from human rights organisations, was that he was aware that certain of these organisations had been regarded by the House of Lords on both the first and second hearings on the immunity appeal as having sufficient interest in the principles governing the extradition of persons accused of international crimes to warrant their being allowed to intervene and be heard on the appeal. After the first decision of the House of Lords, they asked to be allowed to make representations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the question whether an Authority

1 Feb 2000 : Column WA29

to Proceed should issue, and such representations were received and considered both at the time when he was deciding whether to issue the first Authority to Proceed, and again when a fresh Authority to Proceed had to be considered in the light of the second decision of the House of Lords. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary assumed that human rights organisations would wish to make representations on this occasion also, and, therefore, allowed a period of time in which they could do so.

Police Officers: Injuries

Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many police officers were injured on duty in England and during each of the last five years; and how many of those responsible for those injuries did not receive a custodial sentence upon conviction of that offence.[HL658]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Until the Police (Health and Safety) Regulations 1999 came into force on 14 April 1999, police forces were not required by law to record the number of injuries sustained by police officers although prior to that date forces had for several years forwarded such information to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on a voluntary basis. The HSE has complete data for the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Table 1 therefore records the number of injuries to police officers in England in those financial years.

Table 1--Injuries to Police Officers, England

1997-981998-99
Struck by moving, flying or falling object134154
Struck by moving vehicle5273
Strike against something fixed or stationary8394
Injured whilst handling, lifting or carrying238326
Slip, trip or fall on same level326324
Falls from height87103
Exposed to or contact with harmful substance2136
Injured by an animal3551
Injuries caused by assault or violence527448
Other kind of accident184160
Totals1,6871,769

Source:

Health and Safety Executive.

Table 2 records the number of persons cautioned, defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted and sentenced at all courts for offences of assaults on police officers in England in each of the calendar years from 1994 to 1998.


1 Feb 2000 : Column WA30

Table 2

Offence and disposal19941995199619971998
Cautioned1,5111,4101,6181,6091,528
Prosecuted13,90814,2971,61814,83714,263
Convicted9,4309,7749,76510,36710,210
Sentenced of which given:9,4209,7679,76110,37510,214
Non- custodial sentence8,4058,5648,5449,1528,934
Immediate custody1,0151,2031,2171,2231,280

Source:

Research, Development and Statistics, Home Office.


Local Elections: Pilot Schemes

Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What applications they have received from local authorities wanting to run pilot schemes at local elections in May 2000.[HL848]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We hope that the Representation of the People Bill will receive Royal Assent in time to allow the first pilot schemes of innovative electoral procedures to be run at local elections in May.

Clause 10(11) of the Bill allows for applications to be submitted before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Forty-four local authorities have submitted applications to run 64 pilot schemes.

Of these, 21 involve early voting, 14 involve all postal ballots, eight involve electronic voting or counting, seven involve changes to the absent vote arrangements, six involve weekend voting, four involve a mobile ballot box, two involve an extension to polling hours, one involves voter notification, and one involves a freepost facility. Details are set out in the table.

Home Office officials will notify local authorities by 14 February whether my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would be minded to approve their applications should the Bill receive Royal Assent in time for schemes to be run in May.

Local Authority Number of wards Application to Pilot
1. Amber Valley BC Whole authority Whole authority 1. Electronic voting 2. Extend entitlement to postal voting
2. Birmingham MBC Whole authority Early voting
3. Blackburn with Darwen BC Whole authority Early voting
4. Blackpool BC Whole authority Early voting
5. Bolton MBC 3 wards 1. All postal voting 2. Weekend voting
6. Broxbourne BC 12 wards Electronic counting
7. Bury MBC 1 ward Whole authority 1. Electronic voting 2. Early voting
8. Chester CC Whole authority Early voting
9. Coventry CC Whole authority Early voting
10. Doncaster MBC 1 ward All postal voting
11. Eastleigh BC 15 wards 1. Extension of entitlement to postal vote 2. Saturday voting
12. Gateshead MBC 2 wards All postal voting
13. Gloucester CC 3 wards Extension of entitlement to postal vote
14. Halton BC 2 wards Early voting
15. Ipswich BC 2 wards All postal voting
16. Kingston Upon Hull CC Whole authority Early voting
17. Knowsley MBC 3 wards Early voting
18. Leeds CC Whole authority Extend hours of polling
19. Manchester CC Whole authority Early voting
20. Milton Keynes 3 wards 14 wards Whole authority 1. All postal voting 2. Extend entitlement to postal vote 3. Electronic counting
21. Mole Valley DC Whole authority Extend hours of polling
22. North Hertfordshire DC 16 wards 1. Saturday voting 2. Early voting 3. Change to absent vote arrangements
23. Norwich CC 2 wards 2 wards Whole authority Whole authority 1. All postal ballots 2. Voting on Sunday (using different hours) 3. Early voting 4. Mobile polling stations
24. Pendle DC Whole authority Early voting
25. Plymouth CC Whole authority Early voting
26. Redditch BC 9 wards Early voting
27. Salford MDC 1 ward 2 wards 1. All postal voting 2. Electronic voting
28. Solihul MBC 1 ward All postal voting
29. St Helens MBC 6 wards Early voting
30. Stevenage BC 2 wards All postal voting
31. Stoke CC Whole authority Early voting
32. Stratford on Avon DC 18 wards Electronic voting
33. Sunderland CC 8 wards Whole authority 1. Mobile voting 2. Early voting
34. Swindon BC 4 wards All postal voting
35. Telford & Wrekin 2 wards Early voting
36. Three Rivers DC Whole authority 1. All postal voting 2. Early voting 3. Electronic counting
37. Thurrock C 3 wards All postal voting
38. Trafford MBC 2 wards Change to absent vote arrangements
39. Wakefield MDC Whole authority Weekend voting
40. Warrington BC 22 wards Electronic voting
41. Watford BC Whole authority 1. Freepost arrangements as in parliamentary elections 2. Weekend voting 3. Early voting 4. Mobile ballot box 5. Voter notification 6. Proxy voting deadline extension
42. Wigan MBC 3 wards All postal voting
43. Windsor & Maidenhead RB 2 wards Mobile polling facility
44. Wirral 1 ward All postal voting

1 Feb 2000 : Column WA32



   Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page