---

2 Mar 2004 : Column 909W—continued

Animal Welfare

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, ref 147328, with reference to recommendation 14, when the Inspectorate will be reviewed; and by whom. [155934]

Caroline Flint: In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate should be subject to periodic review, by a body other than the Inspectorate itself. The Committee went on to describe the Inspectorate as a "trustworthy, professional body" and also acknowledged the valuable role that it has played in creating a culture of care in establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

In the Government's response, published in January 2003, we welcomed the Select Committee's endorsement of the integrity of the Inspectorate and of the important contribution that it has made to the welfare of animals in designated establishments. However, we recognise that public awareness of the valuable job done by the Inspectorate is poor and agree that this needs to be remedied. We have, therefore, concluded that there would be value in the Inspectorate publishing an annual report on its work. The Inspectorate's first annual report will be published in the autumn of 2004.

As to the periodic review of the Inspectorate, under Section 18 of the 1986 Act, Inspectors are responsible directly to the Secretary of State who is, in turn accountable to Parliament for their work. Inspectors are all medical or veterinary practitioners, as well as being civil servants, and are bound by medical or veterinary codes of professional conduct. In addition, in common with other Home Office staff, the Chief Inspector and members of the Inspectorate are subject to the civil service code and annual performance reviews as part of routine personnel management arrangements. In the light of these comprehensive arrangements, we do not believe that any further form of performance review is necessary. Members of the Inspectorate are highly professional and dedicated and have the complete confidence of Government Ministers.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, ref 147328, with reference to recommendation 11, which Government department is taking the lead on the systematic and visible search for 3Rs methods in toxicology; where that Department's progress can be viewed; and if he will make a statement. [155971]

Caroline Flint: In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the

2 Mar 2004 : Column 910W

Government and the scientific community should engage in a systematic and visible search for methods involving the 3Rs—the replacement of animal use, reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering—in toxicology and that the Government should nominate one department to take the lead on this.

In the Government's response to the Select committee's report, published in January 2003, we agreed that a systematic and visible effort is required. As a first step, the Home Office is currently leading a review of the scope for improving the application of the 3Rs and promoting research into alternatives through the Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs. Membership of the Inter-Departmental Group is drawn from the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Health and Safety Executive and other agencies.

The work of the group includes exploration of the case for a United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs, which was also recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee, a review of the implementation of the Inter-Departmental Data-Sharing Concordat, announced in August 2000, and the review and revision of the Guidelines on Regulatory Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies, published in February 2001, and the statement of principles concerning animal welfare endorsed by the Home Office and other regulatory authorities in 1999—Annex 1 to the Regulatory Toxicology Guidelines.

I am currently considering the Inter-Departmental Group's further advice on the proposed United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs. I expect to receive the findings of the Inter-Departmental Group on the other two issues shortly and will then consider what further steps are required.

Minutes of the meetings of the Inter-Departmental Group are published on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/interdept3rs.html.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, with reference to recommendation 12, what steps the Government have taken to urge EU member states to make replacements a priority. [155972]

Caroline Flint: In its report, published in July 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended that the United Kingdom Government should use their influence to urge the European Union to make the development and validation of replacements for animal experiments a priority, particularly in toxicology.

In our response, published in January 2003, the Government noted the Select Committee's view and agreed that replacement should be the ultimate goal. We also explained that we do not believe that it should be made a priority at the expense of reduction or refinement, as these are where progress can be made more quickly. We are instead fully committed to the furtherance of all of the

2 Mar 2004 : Column 911W

3Rs—the replacement of animal use, reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering.

United Kingdom Government Departments and agencies are involved in a number of specific initiatives in the European Union to develop, validate and incorporate more advanced test methods into regulatory practice. The Government also continue to support the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and the head of the Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division is now the United Kingdom representative on the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee and is contributing to discussions about the future direction of ECVAM's work. The Government also warmly welcome the liaison between ECVAM and its United States counterpart, the Interagency Co-ordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), as a means of achieving greater progress, more quickly and ensuring commitment from more than one economic region. Quick gains cannot necessarily be expected, but we shall continue our efforts to persuade other member states of the importance of progress on the 3Rs.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1205W, on animal welfare, what factors underlay the decision not to invite expert scientific opinion opposed to primate experimentation to take part in the forum, with particular reference to (a) Animal Aid and (b) Europeans For Medical Advancement. [156017]

Caroline Flint: The aim of the stakeholder forum, which was held on 9 January 2004, was to hold informed debate on the recommendations contained in the Animal Procedures Committee's (APC) report entitled "The use of primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—analysis of current trends with particular reference to regulatory toxicology". This in turn was to assist preparation of a ministerial response to the issues which the APC has raised.

The Home Office and the APC agreed that, in order to hold a focused debate, attendance at the forum should be limited to organisations with practical experience in the use of primates in scientific procedures, or with other particular expertise relevant to the report's recommendations.

Consequently, invitees included holders of related project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, from both the commercial and academic sectors, as well as individuals from funding and regulatory organisations and other Government Departments. Groups with expertise in alternatives to animal experiments were also invited to send representatives.

It was decided that representatives from animal protection organisations such as Animal Aid and Europeans For Medical Advancement should not be invited to comment through this forum. Places at the forum were limited and the Home Office and the APC primarily wanted to test the technical basis and the practicalities of the recommendations with those experts in the use of primates best placed to contribute to such an exercise.

2 Mar 2004 : Column 912W

A report on the forum will be placed on the Home Office and APC websites in the near future, and I would be pleased to receive informed comments from any other source before I further consider all the issues raised.

Asylum and Immigration

Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there are in (a) the constituency of Hyndburn and (b) the County of Lancashire. [156725]

Beverley Hughes: The information is not available in the form requested.

Statistics on the location of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom are linked to the available information on the support that the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers currently in the United Kingdom are either in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or from local authorities, or are supporting themselves. Statistics regarding the location of asylum seekers not in receipt of NASS support are unavailable.

The table gives data on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in the constituency of Hyndburn, as at the end of December 2003 (including dependants):

	December 2003
In NASS accommodation	5
In receipt of subsistence only support from NASS	5

Note:

Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

The table gives data on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in the County of Lancashire, as at the end of December 2003 (including dependants):

	December 2003
In NASS accommodation	6,345
In receipt of subsistence only support from NASS	745

Note:

Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which countries from which more than 1,000 asylum seekers have come to the UK within the last five years the UK (a) has and (b) does not have a readmission agreement; how many nationals from each of those countries remain in the UK; what their status is; and whether readmission agreements allow for the return of undocumented asylum seekers. [156768]

Beverley Hughes: There are 47 countries from which more than 1,000 applications have been made in the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2003. The countries and their numbers are contained in the list below. Of these countries, the United Kingdom has negotiated formal bilateral readmission agreements with Albania and Romania, which are currently being ratified. In addition, negotiations have commenced with Poland and will start shortly with Serbia and Montenegro. The European Commission has been mandated to negotiate Community readmission agreements on behalf of member states with Sri Lanka (negotiations have

2 Mar 2004 : Column 913W

been concluded and the agreement is being ratified), China, Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria, Albania, Russia and Ukraine. Bilateral and Community readmission agreements set out the process and evidence required for the re-documentation of returning nationals.

In addition, where it is our experience that a lack of documentation presents a barrier to removal to particular countries, the United Kingdom is working with the authorities of those countries to facilitate the process of identification and re-documentation of persons. These countries include Sri Lanka, India, Turkey, Somaliland, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. Since October 2003 the United Kingdom has had a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding in operation governing returns to Afghanistan and very recently agreed with the Coalition Provisional Authority to effect returns to Iraq.

Applications^{(37) , (38)} received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, for nationalities from which the UK has received more than 1,000 asylum applications within the last five years

Nationality	1999–2003
Iraq	34,575
Somalia	30,575
Afghanistan	27,945
SAM(39)	23,835
Sri Lanka	20,870
China	16,135
Iran	15,850
Turkey	15,760
Zimbabwe	14,315
Pakistan	12,950
India	9,480
Democratic Republic of Congo	7,375
Romania	7,300
Sierra Leone	5,935
Algeria	5,755
Albania	5,605
Czech Republic	5,260
Nigeria	4,710
Angola	4,640
Poland	4,570
Eritrea	3,830
Burundi	3,360
Bangladesh	3,280
Jamaica	3,250
Uganda	3,065
Rwanda	3,030
Ethiopia	2,820
Russia	2,715
Sudan	2,670
Vietnam	2,655
Ukraine	2,650
Other Yugoslavia	2,630
Colombia	2,515
Congo	2,430
Nepal	2,235
Cameroon	2,090
Moldova	2,035
Croatia	1,970
Lithuania	1,870
Kenya	1,820
Ecuador	1,770
Nationality not known	1,620
Ivory Coast	1,620
Belarussia	1,500
Liberia	1,425
Macedonia	1,280
Ghana	1,270
Latvia	1,205

⁽³⁷⁾ Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest 5.

⁽³⁸⁾ May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

⁽³⁹⁾ Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003, SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999).

2 Mar 2004 : Column 914W

Information on how many nationals from each of these countries are currently in the United Kingdom is not available. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. In addition some applicants may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration Service.

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were refused support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in 2003; and how many who were refused support appealed in the High Court. [156805]

Beverley Hughes: The information is not available in the form requested.

Data on numbers of asylum seekers refused under Section 55 are as follows. Data is not available on the number of asylum seekers who were refused support under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that subsequently appealed in the High Court.

Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force on 8 January 2003, restricting the availability of National Asylum Support Service support to those asylum seekers who make an asylum application as soon as reasonably practicable.

Figures in respect of asylum seekers refused under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in 2003 are.

2003	Number of cases refused under Section 55 of the NIA Act 2002
Quarter 1	2,850
Quarter 2	1,830
Quarter 3	2,810
Quarter 4	1,925
Total	9,415

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications were made in-country in each of the last three years. [156806]

Beverley Hughes: The table shows the proportion of asylum applications made in country for each of the last three years.

Asylum applications⁽⁴⁰⁾ received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 2001–03

	2001	2002(41)	2003(42)
Total	71,025	84,130	49,370
Port	24,865	26,560	13,810
Port percentage	35	32	28
In country	46,160	57,570	35,560
In country percentage	65	68	72

⁽⁴⁰⁾ Figures (other than percentages) are rounded to the nearest five

⁽⁴¹⁾ Revised data

⁽⁴²⁾ Provisional data

2 Mar 2004 : Column 915W

Information on the number of asylum applications is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the United Kingdom are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of accommodation contracted for by the National Asylum Support Service was in each year of the dispersal scheme; and if he will estimate the cost in the current year. [157046]

Beverley Hughes: The information requested is as follows:

	£ million
2000–01	115
2001–02	247
2002–03	319
2003–04(43)	Not available

⁽⁴³⁾ Payments for 2003–04 are expected to be broadly in line with 2002–03 but are expected to fall thereafter, as the recent fall in new applications for NASS support feeds through.

---