---

Entry Refusals

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2000, Official Report, column 115W, what account he took of (a) the types of criminal offence mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald, of 24 May 2000, Official Report, columns 977-78, and (b) the criminal offence of possessing child pornography under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in making his decision on amendments to the immigration rules concerned with refusing entry to those convicted of certain criminal offences; what plans he has to refuse entry to persons convicted of the offences mentioned in (a) and (b) above; and if he will make a statement. [136152]

Mrs. Roche: Passengers with convictions for paedophilia, dealing in child pornography and Class C drugs are naturally of concern. Under United Kingdom law, the maximum sentence for these offences is less than 10 years, which may lead to concern that such offences do not appear to be covered by the proposed amendments to Immigration Rule 320(18). But if there is reason to consider that any passenger who has such a conviction is a risk to public safety, they can be refused under Rule 320(19) on the grounds that, in the light of their character, conduct or associations, their exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good. All cases are considered on individual merit, in the light of all relevant factors prevalent at the time.

The purpose of the Government's proposed changes to Rule 320(18) is to strengthen the provision by ensuring that it is more consistently and effectively applied. At present, travellers to the United Kingdom are not routinely questioned about criminal convictions, so refusal under Rule 320(18) is currently unlikely, despite the apparently low threshold for offences to which it applies.

Our proposals will require all travellers to declare any convictions for which they have been imprisoned. No threshold will be specified for offences which should be declared.

In order to provide clear, workable guidelines for officers working in the pressurised environment of the immigration control, and to focus the power on those offences of most concern to the public, we will apply the mandatory requirement to refuse entry under Rule 320(18) to those offences of most concern to the public. That is why we propose a threshold of offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or more, or any offences involving violence, violent sexual behaviour or

21 Nov 2000 : Column: 149W

firearms. The current threshold of 12 months covers a very wide range of offences for which a first-time offender may not even receive a custodial sentence. Mandatory refusal could not be justified in all such cases. We believe that it is essential to strike a careful balance between public safety and the need to avoid delays at ports and airports.

Legal Advisers

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legal advisers are employed by his Department; and of those how many advise on matters relating to animals. [138913]

Mr. Straw: The number of legal advisers currently employed in the Home Office Legal Adviser's Branch is 36 (three of whom work part-time). A team of two lawyers advises on matters relating to animals in addition to advising on other subjects.

Animal Experiments

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000, Official Report, column 380W, on animal experiments, if he will provide a breakdown of the total yearly Government expenditure on research into alternative methods that do not involve animals, stating (a) which departments (i) carry out and (ii) sponsor such research, (b) how much is spent by each and (c) the type of animal research for which alternatives are sought; and if he will make a statement. [138991]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Further to my previous answer of 17 April 2000, Official Report, column 379W, I repeat that most of the work done on alternatives is neither done by the Government nor with Government money. The budget the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee for research into alternatives has, none the less, risen to £265,000 for 2000-01. By "alternatives", we are referring to the development and promotion of alternatives which (1) replace animal use, (2) reduce the number of animals used or (3) refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (3Rs).

This money is not the only money spent by Government Departments on alternatives. For example, the Health and Safety Executive, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council have, in the past year, been very active in taking initiatives in this area.

Last year, the Home Office asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office for an indication of the level of each Department's funding of alternatives. It was very difficult for these Departments to specify exactly how much they spent on alternative research because:

they could not identify all such work that is sponsored, which would involve extensive reviews of thousands of different projects; and


many programmes of work which are not specifically intended for developing alternatives do, nevertheless, result in that development, by design or chance.

21 Nov 2000 : Column: 150W

The amount spent does not relate to annual set allocations of funds, as provided for the Animal Procedures Committee. The Home Office was, however, provided with an estimated figure, totalling over £2 million, for the yearly expenditure across Government for research into alternatives.

I work closely with other Government Departments to ensure the rigorous application of the 3Rs. Additionally, the cross-Whitehall concordat on data sharing should enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals.

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with EU ministers regarding the welfare of animals in the EU, with particular regard to tests carried out on animals; and if he will make a statement. [139407]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Home Office plays an active part in meetings of the European Union National Competent Authorities responsible for the implementation of Directive 86/609/EEC, which relates to the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. We take a lead in formulating European policies, standards and targets for animal care and use that platform to promote a wider influence outside Europe.

The United Kingdom Government will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union. It is their task to commission, monitor and co-ordinate research into alternatives and to develop the processes of validation--that is, the assessment of alternative methods to see whether they are reliable and whether they produce a level of information similar to the animal based tests they are to replace.

Cyber Crime

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the terms of reference of the proposed cyber crime unit; and if he will make a statement on the role of the unit in relation to the criminal use of chatrooms. [139314]

Mr. Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in the reply he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 531W, that a National Hi-Tech Crime Unit would begin work in April 2001.

The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit will:

i) investigate, or support the investigation of, serious and organised crime usually operating on a national or international scale, that wholly or partly involve computers or computer networks such as the internet;

ii) investigate attacks on the United Kingdom Critical National Infrastructure;

iii) undertake forensic retrieval and examination of computer- based evidence gathered in its investigations;

iv) provide the national point of contact for overseas investigators of international offences involving computer networks;

v) provide technical support and advice to investigators in the police service and other law enforcement agencies across the United Kingdom;

21 Nov 2000 : Column: 151W

vi) work in partnership with local police and other agencies taking forward initiatives to promote information security and other hi-tech crime reduction strategies, and

vii) liaise with industry on behalf of the police service, for example through the Internet Crime Forum, the Association of Chief Police Officers' Telecommunications Strategy Forum and the G8 Government-Industry Dialogue on Confidence and Security in Cyberspace, to support co-operation between law enforcement and industry in the detection, investigation and reduction of hi-tech crime.

Potentially, use of internet chatrooms by criminals can feature in the conduct or commission of offences that have local, national or international impact.

Local police computer crime units will investigate and gather evidence of crimes that have a local impact and wholly or partly involve computers or computer networks such as the internet. The scope of these crimes will be wide ranging, from very minor offences to the most serious such as murder or sexual assault.

The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit will investigate the use of internet chatrooms by criminals where that features in its investigations or the investigations it supports. The National Unit will also work with the police service, with Home Office researchers and with industry to develop and identify best practices for proactively policing the internet to identify and prosecute paedophiles who use newsgroups and chatrooms to disseminate illegal material and facilitate other illegal activities.

---