| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Mar 2006 : Column 1601W—continued
Prostitution
Mrs. James: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent progress his Department has made in tackling prostitution; how many people have been prosecuted for (a) living on immoral earnings, (b) exercising control over a prostitute, (c) keeping a brothel and (d) offences under sections 22, 23 and 28 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 since 1997. [55994]
Fiona Mactaggart: Following the wide ranging review of the issues associated with prostitution, the Government in January of this year published a co-ordinated prostitution strategy which sets out a framework to challenge the existence of prostitution.
This aims to disrupt street markets through a sustained enforcement of the laws on kerb crawling and sexual exploitation, to tackle off street prostitution and to address routes out for those women involved, by ensuring that their health, housing and other needs are addressed, and that swift access to drug treatment and rehabilitation is available.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 1602W
The figures for prosecutions under Sections 22, 23, 28 and 33 and Sections 30 and 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 can be found in the following table.
(44) These data are provided on the principal offence basis.
Notes:
1. The information in table is taken from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and gives the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for selected offences under the sexual offences act 1956.
2. The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
Source:
RDS—Office for Criminal Justice Reform
8 Mar 2006 : Column 1603W
Public Order
Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to tackle antisocial behaviour in Swindon; and if he will make a statement. [54565]
Hazel Blears: There are a number of approaches currently under way in seeking to step up the drive in tackling and preventing antisocial behaviour in Swindon. Swindon has made good use of the range of tools and powers available to them to tackle antisocial behaviour. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are used at an early stage to try to divert an individual away from further antisocial behaviour.
The success of this approach has meant that only a small number of those individuals on ABCs have been subject to an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO). Dispersal Orders have also been used, however only where a designated area could be policed appropriately. Swindon has also made excellent use of Crack House Closure powers to tackle drug related antisocial behaviour.
In addition to the use of powers a number of campaigns have been conducted to tackle antisocial behaviour. These include: Operation Graffiti—a multi-agency initiative using Home Office Action Area funding of £40,000 to tackle environmental crime and specifically the issue of graffiti focussing on West Swindon. Operation Crackdown—a publicity campaign to highlight the effects of substance misuse on an individual and in the community.
Anti-begging—a campaign to educate the public about where their money that they give to beggars goes, namely Class A drugs, and that most of the street beggars actually do have homes. Operation Pinehurst Safe and Clean—a multi-agency operation to tackle community antisocial behaviour and environmental crime in Pinehurst. There are several multi-agency environmental operations planned for different areas in Swindon throughout the year.
In terms of preventative work, the Youth Offending Service leads on a number of projects including Positive Activities for Young People, Positive Futures programmes and Splash, all of which aim to divert young people away from crime and antisocial behaviour. Action Area funding of £25,000 is also used to work with those families engaged in antisocial behaviour in the community. There are two types of intervention: a group based programme, facilitated through New College Swindon and an intensive one to one support programme for families who need help.
Shellfish Toxins (Use of Animals)
Mr. Drew:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2006, Official Report, column 1282W, on shellfish toxins (use of animals), how many protocols for the detection of toxins in shellfish intended for human consumption were assigned a substantial severity limit in 2004; how many animals these involved; what adverse effects (a) were anticipated and (b) occurred; and on what basis he concluded that the cost benefit assessment required by section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific
8 Mar 2006 : Column 1604W
Procedures) Act 1986 justified the granting of a project licence in those cases where substantial suffering was anticipated. [56147]
Andy Burnham: Home Office records show that all protocols for the detection of toxins in shellfish intended for human consumption were assigned a substantial severity limit. In total there were three such protocols for the detection of paralytic shellfish poison (PSP) and three for the detection of diarrheic shellfish poison (DSP).
A total of 6,468 animals were used in the relevant procedures during 2004. The predicted adverse effects associated with PSP are that all animals are subdued after injection. Animals injected with samples not containing toxin will frequently then go on to behave in an apparently normal fashion after a few minutes. If toxin is present, clinical signs of sudden, uncontrolled muscle contractions (which can include jerking movements of the limbs) will occur after a period of time related to the level of toxin present in the sample. Death usually occurs two or three minutes after the onset of initial signs and is due to respiratory muscle paralysis. For PSP testing the predicted adverse effects reflect the actual adverse effects seen. The predicted adverse effects associated with DSP are that animals are subdued after injection. Some animals will appear to recover and behave normally after a period of time that can range form a few minutes to around one hour. Behaviours associated with pain can be observed within this period. Additional adverse effects sometimes seen include diarrhoea and piloerection. Animals injected with samples that contain toxin may, in addition, show signs of torpor, cyanosis of the extremities, a drop in body temperature and weakness/inability to maintain balance, prostration, coma, or may die. These signs are seen within five hours of initial injection, and animals showing typical signs of DSP are humanely killed. Additionally, an atypical DSP response has been seen in some animals within 30 minutes of initial injection, whereby animals show convulsions, spasms of the back legs, prostration, and respiratory difficulties including gasping for breath. Signs may be severe and lead to death or less severe and animals may recover. The adverse effects predicted within the protocols in place reflected the actual adverse effects seen. Section 5.4 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act requires that the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence. In the case of testing for the presence of marine biotoxins, the benefits of such testing are the protection of public health by ensuring that consumers are not exposed to biotoxins present in molluscan shellfish. European legislation sets the definitive test for detection of the DSP and PSP groups of marine biotoxins as a mouse bioassay. These toxins pose a significant risk to human health because they can cause serious disease, and in the case of PSP, death, in people. The Home Office is committed to replacement of both bioassays when non-animal tests have been developed and validated to a level that ensures the protection of human health. To this end inspectors within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate are working actively with other UK agencies, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, EU
8 Mar 2006 : Column 1605W
regulators and other expert groups in order to progress the early adoption of alternative tests in the United Kingdom.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |