|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff will be employed at asylum accommodation centres; and if he will list the numbers of (a) teachers, (b) health care staff and (c) social workers within the total; 
(3) what arrangements he is planning for the housing of the staff who will be employed at asylum accommodation centres. 
Beverley Hughes: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 896W, regarding staff numbers.
The numbers of teachers, health care staff and social workers have not yet been set. We expect that most of the work force to be employed in accommodation centres will be drawn from the existing local population, whose school-age children will already be in a local school.
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library (a) tender documentation and (b) other information given to potential contractors for asylum accommodation centres, including a note of the verbal briefing provided. 
David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much Government funding is allocated to research into alternatives to animal testing with regard to medical experiments. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Christopher Chope) on 7 March 2002, Official Report, column 518W.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Government secured a voluntary ban on testing cosmetic finished products and ingredients on animals in the United Kingdom in November 1997 and this position will be maintained. It was pursued because we believe that there is inadequate justification for using animals given the benefits of these products and the alternative tests available. The European Cosmetics Directive defines cosmetics to include not only vanity products but also other products such as toothpaste, baby care products and suncream.
We are committed to putting an end to testing cosmetics on animals across Europe and have led the way and worked hard for many years to try and achieve such a ban. We strongly support the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics
12 Jun 2002 : Column 1310W
Directive, which will introduce a testing ban in the European Union and will extend across Europe what has been almost solely a United Kingdom ban. It will replace the marketing ban envisaged in the 6th Amendment.
In some countries, notably the United States, as indeed currently in other European Union countries, there are mandatory tests which must be carried out on animals as a means of demonstrating a cosmetic's safety for use on humans. We believe that a testing ban in the European Union would strengthen our negotiating position in any subsequent World Trade Organisation (WTO) discussions and enable the pursuance of an improved level of animal welfare within the European Union while ensuring full compliance with WTO rules. The Department of Trade and Industry lead in this area.
Through our contributions to the European Union, we support the work of the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), whose role is to co-ordinate the independent evaluation of the relevance and reliability of tests and validation studies, so that cosmetics products, as well as medicines, vaccines, other biologicals, medical devices, household products and agricultural products, can be manufactured, transported and used more economically and more safely while the current reliance on animal test procedures is progressively reduced.
We also support the Test Guidelines Programme of the Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) which should enable alternative methods to be accepted internationally and with minimum delay.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures is strictly regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is widely regarded as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. It offers a high level of protection to animals while recognising the need to use animals in research. It also requires the latest ideas and technology to be taken into account when deciding whether the use of animals is justified.
All such procedures, whether for medical experiments or for other purposes, are licensed and tightly controlled under the 1986 Act. Applications for licences and certificates are assessed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, who are all highly qualified and experienced in medicine or veterinary science. They have very high professional standards directed at ensuring that animals are protected within the terms of the Act and the conditions of the licences.
Inspectors maintain programmes of visits to establishments to check that the terms and conditions of the licences and certificates are being complied with. All designated establishments are visited regularly, the number of visits to each establishment varying according to its size and the type of work being conducted at any particular time. Two thirds of all visits are without notice. Visits by appointment are usually made to conduct interviews with staff, to discuss new work proposals and
12 Jun 2002 : Column 1311W
ongoing work, to examine records of work, to investigate non-compliance or to view premises being considered for designation.
In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act requires that the likely benefits of the programme be weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.
For the purposes of this cost/benefit assessment, the cost to the animal is considered as the adverse effects of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The benefits must be for humans, animals or the environment and relate to the scientific and/or medical progress likely to result directly from the programme outlined in the application.
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) of 18 December 2001, Official Report, column 237W, on the Private Finance Initiative, what savings are expected for each project listed in his answer; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Denham: On 15 May, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. As part of the overall review process, and in order to provide practitioners with an up-to-date set of Codes as soon as possible, limited amendments are proposed to existing Codes of Practice B-E. These will primarily take account of legislative changes since the Codes were last updated in 1995. Further changes to the Codes may follow from the broader PACE review.
12 Jun 2002 : Column 1312W
Section 67 of PACE requires that the Secretary of State first prepare and publish revised drafts of any proposed amendments for consultation. The revised draft PACE Codes of Practice B-E were issued for consultation today and copies have been placed in the Library.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|