| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
PRIME MINISTER
Correspondence
Mr. Brady: To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter dated 12 January which was sent to him by the Chairman of the Royal Society of St. George. [112482]
The Prime Minister: My Office has no record of having received this letter.
National Health Service
Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if the five point plan for the National Health Service announced on 29 February will apply to Wales. [112912]
The Prime Minister: The responsibility for health issues in Wales has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and it is for it to decide whether or not to adopt the five point plan.
Global Cultural Diversity Congress
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd, and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [112719]
The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 March 2000]: My Office was informed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had decided that it would not be justifiable to use substantial public funds to support the Global Cultural Diversity Congress on 21 February 2000.
World Education Forum
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to attend the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal; and if he will make a statement. [113087]
The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom delegation to the conference has yet to be decided.
Iraq
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with (a) President Clinton and (b) the Federal German Chancellor the resignation of (i) Hans von Sponeck and (ii) Jutta Burghardt from their UN assignments in Baghdad. [113359]
The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 2000]: No.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Visitor's Bond Scheme
Mr. Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries outside the UK which operate a visitor's bond scheme. [113138]
Mrs. Roche:
We do not have comprehensive information, but we understand that broadly comparable schemes exist in Canada, Germany and the United States of America.
7 Mar 2000 : Column: 564W
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason injury awards made to police officers in lieu of earnings remain payable after retirement age. [112556]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
An injury award is payable as a form of compensation where a police officer becomes permanently disabled for police duty as the result of an injury received in the execution of their duty.
The award compensates an officer for the reduction in their earning capacity. In the wider context, it is considered that earning capacity should be related to a person's main source of livelihood. Therefore, where a police officer has reached retirement age their injury pension will continue to be paid where their opportunity to obtain a larger pension has also been reduced by the injury.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the police personnel procedure regulations in respect of the provision to allow those suffering from long-term sickness to have their employment terminated. [112557]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
There is no provision within Police Regulations for the termination of employment solely on the ground of long-term sickness.
The Police Pensions Regulations provide for compulsory retirement on the ground of permanent disablement.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the applicability to current conditions of the police pension regulations; what plans he has to update these; and if he will make a statement. [112562]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
I am currently considering what changes are required to the police pensions regulations, following the current major review of all aspects of police pension arrangements. I hope to publish specific proposals in spring this year.
Mr. Woodward:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people (a) in total and (b) from ethnic minorities (i) applied and (ii) were recruited to the police in each year since 1995. [113466]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
The table sets out the information requested for 1995 to 1998. Figures for 1999 are not yet available.
(1) 5,712 = figure updated from 5,663 as a result of a change notified by North Wales Police (delete "0" and insert "49")
Source:
Figures supplied by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
7 Mar 2000 : Column: 565W
Pets
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to use the options of (a) restriction of species range and (b) restriction of numbers under the Pet Animals Act 1951; and if he will make a statement. [112561]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government keep under review legislation on animals, but have not announced any plans to change it. Existing legislation bears on the range of species and number of animals which can be sold in pet shops.
Pet shops are licensed by local authorities under the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended in 1983), and subject to licence conditions to safeguard the health and welfare of the animals in their charge. In considering whether to grant a licence to run a pet shop, a local authority will need to satisfy itself that the welfare of the animals will not be compromised. The species and numbers of animals will have a direct bearing on the overall welfare conditions.
In addition, certain endangered animals imported for the pet trade are also protected under European Wildlife Regulations, which implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Some exotic pets can be lawfully sold to people only subject to stringent licence controls imposed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and there are statutory restrictions on trade in United Kingdom wildlife species. It is also an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experiments, how many of the pigs used were transgenic; and if he will make a statement; [112633]
7 Mar 2000 : Column: 566W
(3) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experiments, in the case of primates used in organ transplant experiments, how many primates had an organ of their own removed and replaced with a pig organ; how many had a pig organ inserted into them but kept their own organ; and if he will make a statement; [112565]
(4) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experiments, how many of these primates were wild-caught; and if he will make a statement; [112629]
(5) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experimentation, if he will provide a breakdown of the cause of death of all the primates used in xenotransplantation research between 1996 and 1999; and if he will make a statement; [112630]
(6) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experiments, if he will describe the experiments in which these primates were used; and if he will make a statement; [112631]
(7) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experimentation, how many pigs were used in (a) breeding experiments aimed at producing pigs with certain desired genetic characteristics and (b) experiments involving the removal of pig organs for transplantation into primates; and if he will make a statement. [112632]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
None of the primates were killed by order of the Home Office Inspectorate under the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the ground that they were undergoing excessive suffering. All of the decisions to treat or euthanase the animals were made by the relevant named veterinary surgeon.
My previous answer explained that the majority of the primates were euthanased once they began to show clinical or biochemical evidence of terminal organ failure or when their clinical condition began to give cause for concern. The aim of this procedure is to prevent unnecessary suffering to the animals.
Twenty-nine wild-caught primates were used in xenotransplanation research in 1996; 16 in 1997; three in 1998 and none in 1999.
I am unable to provide answers to the hon. Gentleman's remaining questions as to do so would involve the release of commercially sensitive information on experimental design and production strategy, which is precluded by section 24 of the 1986 Act.
As I stated in my previous answer, we understand that the company concerned has already briefed the hon. Gentleman on its xenotransplanation programme and it has indicated that it would be happy to update the hon. Gentleman and other parliamentary colleagues on the most recent position.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to table 11 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in GB for 1998, relating to procedures carried out on dogs to satisfy legislative requirements, if he will identify the legislative requirements, indicating the number of licences awarded
7 Mar 2000 : Column: 567W
in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 to allow procedures to be carried out and the number of procedures carried out under each licence; and if he will make a statement. [112563]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The Government recognise the particular concern about the use of dogs in scientific procedures. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals may be used only where there are no alternatives and where the benefits of the programme outweigh any suffering caused to the animals concerned. In addition, certain species (including dogs) can be used only where animals of no other species are suitable. Special conditions, tailored to each project, control and minimise any pain or suffering caused.
Examples of specific legislative requirements relevant to Table 11 (Scientific procedures (toxicology) by species of animal, type of legislation and toxicological purpose) are provided in the Introductory Notes to the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain 1998). They are:
(2) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, on animal experiments, how many primates were killed by order of the Home Office Inspectorate under the provisions of section 18(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, on the ground that they were undergoing excessive suffering; what procedures they had been subjected to; and if he will make a statement; [112564]
The Medicines Act 1968;
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974;
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations;
Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986;
European Union Pesticides Directives; and
The Food Safety Act 1990.
Table 11 records 4,275 procedures carried out on dogs in 1998. These were conducted under 39 separate project licenses. Tables 13, 15 and 16 provide further information on the type of toxicological tests used. The number of procedures carried out under each licence was as follows:
7 Mar 2000 : Column: 568W
Figures for 1999 are being collated now and are not yet available. They will be published in July.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |