| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 Nov 2004 : Column 184W—continued
Special Advisers
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many unpaid special advisers the Department has; what their names are; and which Government (a) bodies, (b) committees and (c) strategy groups each unpaid adviser (i) belongs to, (ii) advises and (iii) works alongside. [194067]
Phil Hope: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) on 28 October 2004, Official Report, column. 1380W.
Traveller Sites
Mr. Flook: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for new legislation on illegally encamped traveller sites in England; and if he will make a statement. [195497]
Keith Hill:
There are no plans for further legislation relating to unauthorised encampments at this time, however the final version of the joint Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Home Office guidance document, "Managing Unauthorised Camping" will be published in the near future. The Government have also introduced amendments into the Housing Bill with the intention of increasing the availability of sites for Gypsies and Travellers, which will help to reduce unauthorised camping. New Regulations will also be introduced shortly which will prescribe circumstances when temporary stop notices may be used to prevent illegal encampments.
2 Nov 2004 : Column 185W
HOME DEPARTMENT
Motor Vehicle Registration Plates
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were for failure to display a motor vehicle registration plate in the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by police authority area. [194343]
Caroline Flint: The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not separately identify the specific offence of failure to display a motor vehicle registration plate.
Animal Rights Extremists
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department gives police forces regarding the use of the law on criminal conspiracy in relation to the activities of animal rights extremists; and if he will make a statement. [193280]
Caroline Flint: The Home Office provides no specific guidance to the police on the use of the offence of criminal conspiracy in relation to the activities of animal rights extremists. However the Association of Chief Police Officers has produced a good practice guide for policing animal rights extremism including information on all the relevant legislation. Forces can also seek advice and support on tackling Animal Rights Extremism from the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit.
Animal Testing
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the classification of animal testing procedures as (a) mild, (b) moderate and (c) substantial severity, with particular reference to their effect on animals. [193084]
Caroline Flint: The classification of severity limits to be applied to the protocols of licensed scientific procedures using animals is described in the publication entitled Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This was presented to Parliament on 23 March 2000 (HC 321—a copy will be in the Library).
For ease of reference the following is a relevant extract from the publication:
5.40 The severity limit for each protocol is determined by the upper limit of the expected adverse effects that may be encountered by a protected animal, taking into account the measures specified in the licence for avoiding and controlling adverse effects. It represents the worst potential outcome for any animal subjected to the protocol, even if it may only be experienced by a small number of the animals to be used.
5.41 In assessing the severity limit of a protocol, account should be taken of the effect of all the procedures (whether regulated or not) applied to each animal or group of animals; the nature and extent of the likely adverse effects; the action taken to mitigate these effects; and the humane endpoints to be applied.
Protocols performed entirely under general anaesthesia, from which the animal does not recover consciousness. This includes the preparation and use of decerebrated animals.
Protocols that, at worst, give rise to slight or transitory minor adverse effects. Examples include: small infrequent blood samples; skin irritation tests with substances expected to be non-irritant or only mildly irritant; minor surgical procedures under anaesthesia such as small superficial tissue biopsies or cannulation of peripheral blood vessels. However, if used in combination or repeated in the same animal, the cumulative severity may be increased beyond mild. Protocols may also be regarded as mild if they have the potential to cause greater suffering but contain effective safeguards to initiate effective symptomatic or specific treatment or terminate the protocol before the animal shows more than minor adverse effects.
Protocols regarded as moderate include toxicity tests (which do not involve lethal endpoints) and many surgical procedures (provided that suffering is controlled and minimised by effective post-operative analgesia and care). Protocols that have the potential to cause greater suffering but include controls which minimise severity, or terminate the protocol before the animal shows more than moderate adverse effects, may also be classed within the moderate severity limit.
Protocols that may result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These include: acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity or death is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of anti-microbial agents and vaccines; major surgery; and some models of disease, where welfare may be seriously compromised. If it is expected that even one animal would suffer substantial effects, the procedure would merit a 'substantial' severity limit.
The Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated [Section IO(2A)].
The use of severity limits and bands (relating to whole licensed projects, as also described in the published Guidance) is currently being considered by the Animal Procedures Committee, who have been asked to see whether any changes might usefully be made.
Anti-social Behaviour Orders
Tom Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for The Home Department whether he intends to review the working of anti-social behaviour order legislation following the High Court decision in the case involving the press road crew; and if he will make a statement. [191964]
Ms Blears: We are committed to issuing further guidance on anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) following the judgement in the Stanley v. London Borough of Brent/Metropolitan Police Judicial Review. We are also looking into ending automatic reporting restrictions for people under 18 who breach their ASBOs, as set out in our Strategic Plan published in July this year.
Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in the Workington constituency. [191034]
2 Nov 2004 : Column 187W
Ms Blears [holding answer 21 October 2004]: Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been available to the courts since 1 April 1999. From commencement, up to 31 March 2004 (latest available), the Home Office has been notified of four ASBOs issued where restrictions imposed are specific to the Allerdale borough council area, in which the constituency of Workington is located.
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been breached (a) once, (b) twice and (c) on three or more occasions since the inception of ASBOs; and in how many cases breaches have been dealt with by way of (i) conditional discharge and (ii) a custodial sentence; [191514]
(2) how many breaches in antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) on (a) a second occasion and (b) a third or later occasion have been dealt with by way of (i) a conditional discharge, (ii) a community sentence other than a conditional discharge and (iii) a custodial sentence in each year since the inception of ASBOs. [191515]
Ms Blears: The information is not available in the form requested. However, of the 855 antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) notified to the Home Office as being issued between 1 June 2000 and 31 December 2002, 305 were breached, within the same period, on one or more than one occasion. As a result, 152 persons were given a custodial sentence, 93 received community sentences, and 60 received other sentences of which four received a conditional discharge. The sentence counted is the severest across all breaches.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |