Previous Section Index Home Page

28 Nov 2005 : Column 23W—continued


Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons elevated to the peerage in each year since 1997 were resident at the time of their elevation in (a) each region of England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [32503]

28 Nov 2005 : Column 24W

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on 24 March 2005, Official Report, column 939W and 14 September 2004, Official Report, column 1565W.

Since 25 March 2005, 38 people have been elevated to the peerage. Their place of residence at the time of their elevation is shown in the following table. Information for judicial peers is not held in the format requested.
Residence at time of elevationNumber
North East2
East of England5
West Midlands1
South East4
South West4
Northern Ireland0
Judicial (no home address)1


Animal Experiments

Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stages the scientific validity of an animal experimentation project is assessed before it can be licensed by his Department; by whom; and by what methods. [30414]

Andy Burnham: The use of animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom is strictly regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Licences are granted for animalexperiments undertaken for specific permissible purposes. There must be no alternative to the use of animals, the potential benefit of the work has to outweigh the adverse effects on the animals involved and the number of animals used and any suffering that may be caused must be minimised.

Under the conditions attached to a certificate of designation under the 1986 Act, proposals to conduct a programme of work involving animal experiments must first be considered by the local ethical review process at the establishment concerned. One of the functions of the Ethical Review Process is to examine the efficacy and conduct of work to be undertaken. In addition, research councils and charities fund many research projects carried out under the 1986 Act and such work is evaluated by and reported to those organisations. A licence application is only submitted to the Home Office once participants in the local ethical review process are satisfied that the work can be justified.

Applications received by the Home Office are thoroughly assessed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, to ensure compliance with the criteria laid down in the 1986 Act. To comply with section 5(4) of the Act, any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/
28 Nov 2005 : Column 25W
benefit assessment by Home Office inspectors. Here, the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned are weighed against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work. Inspectors are either medical or veterinary professionals. They usually have first hand experience of biomedical research and possess higher scientific or clinical postgraduate qualifications. They advise the Secretary of State on whether and on what terms licence authorities should be granted. Some applications are also referred for advice to the Animal Procedures Committee.

Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has received from (a) the Animal Procedures Committee and (b) other sources of independent advice on the scientific validity of animal experiments. [30415]

Andy Burnham: Three major United Kingdom inquiries have reported since 2002 on the contribution of animal research to science and medicine.

In 2002 the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures held that

The Animal Procedures Committee carried out a review of the cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research and reported on this in June 2003. That report clearly states that
28 Nov 2005 : Column 26W

In 2005 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in their report The Ethics of Research Involving Animals", stated that

The report also states that

We believe these views reflect those of the great majority in the wider scientific community.


Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been deported to Zimbabwe from the UK since 2001. [19378]

Mr. McNulty: Information on the destination of asylum removals has only been recorded since the start of 2004.

The latest published information on removal of asylum seekers covers the second quarter of 2005.

Information on removals of asylum seekers for the third quarter of 2005 will be published later this year on the Home Office website at
Removals and voluntary departures(3) of principal asylum applicants, all nationalities to Zimbabwe, 2004 to 2005 Q2(4)(5508430005)
Number of persons

Type of removalQ1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2
Total persons removed(6)(5508430007)1515255095105
of whom:
Persons removed as a result of enforcement action(7)(5508430008)(9)51010307075
of whom:
Persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes(10)151015202530

(3)Under sections 3(6), 3(7) or 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, or under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
(4)Figures rounded to the nearest five. Data may not sum due to rounding.
(6)Including persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them.
(7)Persons who had sought asylum at some stage, excluding dependants.
(8)Due to a change in the working practices of IND all asylum removals are now classed as enforced removals. Therefore there are no longer any asylum removals classed as Refused entry at port and subsequently removed", and so the figures for 2004 are not directly comparable with previous years. This reclassification has no affect on the total removals recorded for 2004. This reclassification occurred in February 2003 and so applied to all asylum removals conducted in 2004. This change does not affect non-asylum removals.
(9)Excludes assisted voluntary returns.
(10)Persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration. May include some on-entry cases and some cases where enforcement action has been initiated.

Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is on the deportation of failed asylum seekers from the UK who are (a) enrolled in a school or college and (b) due to sit examinations for (i) GCSEs or (ii) A-levels in the year they were deported; and if he will make a statement. [30073]

28 Nov 2005 : Column 27W

Mr. McNulty: We will seek to remove failed asylum seekers who have no lawful basis of stay in the UK and who do not choose to leave voluntarily. In cases involving families, pastoral visits will normally be
28 Nov 2005 : Column 28W
undertaken prior to removal to establish any factors which may impact on the timing of any removal. This may include any imminent examinations leading to a significant qualification.
Removals of failed minor asylum seekers by quarter for 2004 and 2005(11)

Grand total4,1003,7803,5853,44014,9053,4453,590

(11)Minors defined as under 18 on the date of their removal.
(12)For those where no date of birth is available.
1.This is based on provisional management information.
2.The above figures have been rounded to the nearest five and totals may not sum.

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of female asylum seekers were pregnant on application for asylum in each of the last five years. [31004]

Mr. McNulty: Information on how many female asylum seekers are pregnant on application for asylum is not available. Information on asylum applications by sex is published annually. Copies are available from the Library of the House and on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the immigration and nationality directorate's protocol is for returning personal documentation to failed asylum seekers. [31182]

Mr. McNulty: The immigration and nationality directorate will take all reasonable steps to return personal documentation to asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. The process for returning these documents depends on the circumstances of the person's case.

Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the immigration and nationality directorate review of managed migration routes has resulted in (a) the suspension of and (b) delay to applications from Commonwealth citizens residing in the UK under the ancestral visa scheme for indefinite leave to remain; [25345]

(2) how many individuals from each Commonwealth country have had applications through the ancestral visa scheme for indefinite leave to remain (a) delayed and (b) suspended since the outset of the review of managed migration routes. [25346]

Mr. McNulty: Concern about possible abuse of the UK ancestry route was identified during the course of the top-to-bottom review of managed migration routes launched by the Prime Minister in April 2004. The review found evidence of suspected abuse of the ancestral visa route from Zimbabweans, which has therefore resulted in suspension and delay of these applications. The suspension on decision making relatesonly to those UK ancestry cases submitted by Zimbabwean nationals and has affected approximately 300 indefinite leave to remain applications.

It is only right that the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) should take all actions necessary to identify the level of abuse and put in place measures to prevent it, and I regret any delay this creates for bona fide applicants. However I am pleased to announce that the investigation is now at such a stage that consideration of UK ancestry cases from Zimbabwean nationals can now be resumed.

We are currently consulting on a new points based system for managed migration to cover routes to work, study and train in the UK. As we develop the new system, we will consider how it relates to existing routes such as UK ancestry, and will assess the possible impact before making changes.

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the penalty is for lorry drivers who allow illegal immigrants to enter the UK in their lorry. [26457]

Mr. McNulty: The civil penalty regime, as amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, enables the imposition of a penalty on drivers, owners, operators and hirers of transporters of up to a maximum of £2,000 per clandestine entrant carried to the UK or to a UK immigration control operated in a prescribed zone. In cases where liability is incurred, the level of penalty: code of practice sets out the factors to be taken into consideration when setting the amount of penalty.

Next Section Index Home Page