Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physicians who qualified in each year since 1990 left the profession within five years of qualification; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Denham: The information requested is not available centrally. However, the Department does commission occasional studies by the Medical Careers Research Group (MCRG) into the career patterns of newly qualified doctors from particular cohorts. The table shows the MCRG's estimates of the numbers of doctors not practising medicine, and the numbers not practising medicine in the United Kingdom, five years after qualification.
The percentage of graduates not practising medicine after five years has remained quite low for all cohorts, with no clear trends over time. For the 1993 cohort, only 5.2 per cent. were not practising medicine by 1998. The
1 Feb 2001 : Column: 267W
trend in those not practising medicine in the UK after five years also remains stable, but the latest figure is lower than in previous years at 8.8 per cent.
|Not practisin medicine after 5 years
|Not practising medicine in the UK after 5 years
|Year of qualification
The figures exclude non-respondents who are registered as doctors in the UK
Medical Careers Research Group
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave approval for the rank of chief superintendent to be reintroduced at the earliest legislative opportunity following consultation with police service interests and on the recommendation of the Police Advisory Board (PAB). The PAB view was that the abolition of the rank from 1 April 1995 had led to operational and management difficulties.
Dr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for the ability of political parties to introduce measures aimed at increasing the representation of women in Parliament of the draft Equal Treatment Directive. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: This is a very complex issue which will involve analysis of relevant equality, employment and electoral law. The Home Office has recently agreed to lead this work, but it will involve cross-departmental consideration. I cannot yet estimate when conclusions will be reached.
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the benefits are of the licensing procedures of substantial severity under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; if these are dependent upon the species of animals used; and if he will make a statement; 
1 Feb 2001 : Column: 268W
(3) if he will ensure that the guidelines attached to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 stipulate that the Secretary of State will not license procedures likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The reply I gave the hon. Member on 8 November 2000, Official Report, column 253W, fully explained the criteria for placing scientific procedures on animals in the category of "substantial severity". That reply also made it clear that, for each licence application, the likely severity of the effects of a proposed procedure on the animals concerned are weighed against the benefits likely to accrue in medical research or other developments.
This is an area of research where, rightly, enormous care is taken in granting licences. This means that licences can allow protected animals to suffer substantially severe effects only in the relatively few cases where it appears justified by the significant medical, pharmaceutical and other research gains to be made (66 of the 3,481 project licences in force at the end of 1999 had substantial severity conditions). Even then, as I made clear in the earlier reply, licence holders are required to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and to approach the prescribed severity limit only when absolutely necessary.
The species of animals to be used may be a factor in determining severity limits, given the criteria for defining the categories and the known varying degrees of sentience between species. However, the judgment on severity limits is exercised with respect to the suffering to be encountered by a protected animal, rather than the species by itself.
The Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, presented to Parliament in March 2000, states that the Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated. This accords with section 10(2A) of the Act, which in turn refers to Council Directive No. 86/609/EEC, regarding use of anaesthesia and analgesics. As a further safeguard, all project licences contain a standard condition (number 6) requiring that only the minimum justifiable animal suffering is caused and personal licences all bear a standard condition (number 14) requiring the prompt and humane destruction of an animal that is in severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated. In addition, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectors have the power to require the prompt and humane killing of any protected animal they consider to be suffering excessively or unnecessarily.
There are no current plans to exclude major surgery and xenotransplantation from the substantial severity category. Each application for a licence to undertake such procedures will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis.
1 Feb 2001 : Column: 269W
|Number of special constables
|Barking and Dagenham
|Hammersmith and Fulham
|Kensington and Chelsea
In addition to the officers serving in boroughs, 10 officers are attached to Territorial Policing, 14 officers are serving with the Marine Support Unit based at Wapping and eight officers are based at Heathrow. A further four officers are currently unallocated.
1 Feb 2001 : Column: 270W