| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Apr 2004 : Column 84W—continued
Animal Testing
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animal experiments were conducted in connection with (a) household cleaning products and (b) ingredients used in household cleaning products in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [165436]
19 Apr 2004 : Column 85W
Caroline Flint: (a) In the statistics which are collected and published by the Home Office it is not possible to identify household cleaning products separately from other products which are used in the household. The numbers of procedures for testing the safety of such products, in each year since 1997, are shown in table 25 of 'Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain', 2002, a copy of which is in the Library.
For ease of reference the numbers of procedures for safety testing of substances used in the household are shown in the table.
| Number of procedures | |
|---|---|
| 1997 | 2,026 |
| 1998 | 1,477 |
| 1999 | 341 |
| 2000 | 1,242 |
| 2001 | 590 |
| 2002 | 1,032 |
(b) It is not possible to identify procedures performed for the safety testing of ingredients used in household cleaning products since these substances are likely to have other uses and the procedures will be reported under the category which is most relevant to the likely use of, and exposure to, the substance in question.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of the LD50 test on animals for the testing of pharmaceuticals in the UK. [165449]
Caroline Flint: Guidance produced by the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for the registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) does not recommend LD50 tests on animals, and the Home Office does not license LD50 tests for such agents.
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been made available to the police to meet their additional responsibilities under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004. [162623]
Ms Blears: This information is not available in the form requested. However the Government grant to support overall police spending will be almost £10.1 billion in 2004–05 which represents an increase of £2.3 billion or a 30 per cent. increase since 2000–01. This provides for a record number of police officers with officer numbers at 138,155 in December 2003—an increase of 5,887 since December 2002.
Within this overall grant we have provided substantial additional funding to the Police Service in England and Wales to enable them to respond to the increased threat from international terrorism since September 2001:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 2002–03 | 63 |
| 2003–04 | 59 |
| 2004–05 | 84 |
19 Apr 2004 : Column 86W
The figure for 2004–05 includes an additional £15 million of funding for Police Special Branches which was announced on 19 March.
ASBOs
Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many breaches of anti-social behaviour orders were subject to court enforcement in Langbaurgh police basic command unit in 2003; [164447]
(2) how many people were made the subject of anti-social behaviour orders in Langbaurgh police basic command unit in 2003. [164448]
Ms Blears: The Home Office has not received any notification of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, from 1 January 2003 up to 30 September 2003 (latest available), within the unitary authority area of Redcar and Cleveland, which is covered by the Langbaurgh police district.
Breach data for 2003 will be available in the autumn. Data on breaches of ASBOs successfully prosecuted are currently available for the period 1 June 2000 up to 31 December 2002. During this period in the Cleveland Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area, in which the local government area of Redcar and Cleveland is located, the total number of breaches successfully prosecuted is seven.
Aspect Court
Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when since 1 January 2003 he (a) visited Aspect Court and (b) met officials from Aspect Court. [161128]
Mr. Blunkett: I have not visited Aspect Court since 1 January 2003. Neither have I, to the best of my knowledge, met with any officials from Aspect Court. Senior Immigration and Nationality Directorate officials do, of course, have regular meetings with staff from Aspect Court.
I did, however, open nearby Foundry House in November 2002 and met with a number of officials on that occasion.
Asylum Appeals
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much time is given to applicants for political asylum to prepare their appeal after the receipt of a letter of refusal from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [164213]
Mr. Browne:
If an applicant for asylum is refused the time limits for lodging appeals are contained in the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003 and the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2003. These time limits do not start to run until the decision from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has been served in accordance with the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003. Under these Regulations, if notice is given to the applicant's representatives, it is taken to have been given to the applicant. A summary of these limits is set out as follows.
19 Apr 2004 : Column 87W
If the asylum claim is certified by the Secretary of State as clearly unfounded within the meaning of section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the applicant may not bring an appeal while still in the United Kingdom. He or she may appeal from outside the United Kingdom, and has 28 days from his or her departure from the UK to lodge their appeal.
If the claim is not certified as clearly unfounded, the time limits to give notice of appeal are as follows:
(a) if the person is in the United Kingdom and is in detention under the Immigration Acts, he or she has five days to give notice of appeal;
(b) if the person is in the United Kingdom, but not in detention, he or she has 10 days to give notice of appeal;
(c) if the person is subject to the Fast Track process, he or she has two days to give notice of the appeal.
The notice of appeal is lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
The time limits relate to lodging the notice of appeal. The time the person has to prepare for the actual appeal hearing will depend on when the Immigration Appellate Authority receives the appeal and lists it for hearing.
The relevant procedural rules also make provision for cases where the notice of appeal is given outside the applicable time limit.
Asylum Applications (Burmese)
Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum from Burmese people were (a) received and (b) refused in 2002–03. [164451]
Mr. Browne: The number of Burmese nationals (excluding dependants) claiming asylum and initial decisions on asylum applications for 2002–03 are shown in the table. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period. 75 per cent. of initial decisions made in 2002–03 on applications from Burmese nationals were refusals.
| Burma (Myanmar)—April 2002 to March 2003 | Number |
|---|---|
| Applications | |
| Total | 85 |
| Port | 15 |
| In country | 70 |
| Decisions | |
| Total decisions | 85 |
| Grants of asylum | 20 |
| Grants of ELR | * |
| Total refusals(50) | 65 |
(48) Provisional figures rounded to nearest five, with '*' = one or two.
(49) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(50) May include some refusals under non compliance grounds.
Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Burmese failed asylum seekers were deported to Burma in the year 2002–03. [164452]
19 Apr 2004 : Column 88W
Mr. Browne: Estimates of the number of Burmese nationals who had sought asylum at some stage and who were removed from the UK in the financial year 2002–03 are shown in the table. These figures include persons departing 'voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, removals to a safe third country and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.
| April 2002 to March 2003 | |
|---|---|
| Burma (Myanmar) | 5 |
(51) Including persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them.
(52) May include removals to a safe third country.
(53) Data are estimated due to data quality issues on the IND databases.
(54) Provisional figures.
Note:
Data are rounded to nearest five.
Information on the destination of these removals and whether they were forcibly removed or departed voluntarily is not available, except by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
All asylum (and human rights) claims made by Burmese nationals are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the independent Immigration Appellate Authority be unsuccessful, it means that for that individual it is safe to return.
In making decisions about removing failed asylum seekers, the Home Office takes full account of up to date information from a wide range of sources about the situation in the country of origin. These sources include intergovernmental organisations (such as the UN), governmental sources (including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and human rights organisations (for example Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch).
If an individual asylum seeker establishes a need for international protection they would not be returned.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |