| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Jun 2006 : Column 263W—continued
Woodbury Common
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether military training on Woodbury Common, East Devon has ever involved use of (a) toxic and (b) allergenic substances being used for chemical experimentation by his Ministry. [73890]
Mr. Watson: Woodbury Common has been used for military training since Napoleonic times. Neither Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM), who currently conduct training on the common, nor Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down have any record of using toxic or allergenic substances for chemical experimentation. CTCRM use CS canisters as part of routine training, but there is no risk associated with CS gas used in this way.
Home Department
Animal Testing
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has assessed on animal testing and carcinogenicity. [74003]
Joan Ryan: Since humans can be exposed to low levels of chemicals in their diet, or in their environment, over a significant proportion of their lifespan, studies to evaluate lifetime exposure are conducted in animals to ascertain the potential for the chemical to cause cancer. The objective of carcinogenicity studies is to identify the potential of test materials to cause tumours in animals and to assess the relevant risk in humans. Carcinogenicity studies are time consuming and resource intensive and are only performed when potential or actual human exposure warrants the need for this information to be generated. Our implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 ensures that this is the case, and that the studies that are undertaken avoid unnecessary animal use, do not cause unnecessary suffering and provide data of a sufficiently high quality to inform risk assessments and regulatory decisions.
We make every effort to keep abreast of developments in this and other areas relevant to the use of animals under the 1986 Act. For example, issues relating to the use of animals for carcinogenicity studies fall within the broader remit of the Inter-departmental Group on the 3Rs, which the Home Office leads and membership of which includes
relevant United Kingdom regulators. We are informed of work on validation within Europe through the United Kingdom representative to the Scientific Advisory Committee to the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). In addition, our professional inspectorate maintains awareness of developments taking place within United Kingdom research laboratories, and of relevant publications.
In this latter context, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have recently published a report entitled “Creative Accounting” looking at carcinogenicity studies. We have referred the technical issues contained in the PETA report to the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) for scientific evaluation. We will consider any issues relevant to the implementation of the 1986 Act when we have received the Committee’s advice.
Antisocial Behaviour
Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department within what timescale he plans to roll out the facility across the country if the pilot in Southampton to provide a dedicated telephone line for reporting antisocial behaviour is successful. [72819]
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 22 May 2006]: The 101 single non-emergency number service for community safety action, information and advice will be rolled out across England and Wales in a number of waves. The first wave will see the service launch in Hampshire (including Southampton) and four other areas in summer 2006. The service will be available across England and Wales by the end of 2008.
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to 10 to 17-year-olds since 1999 broken down by (a) age and (b) local authority area; how many have been breached in each case; and in what percentage of cases where a breach occurred a parenting order (i) had been and (ii) had not been applied; [71743]
(2) in how many antisocial behaviour orders issued to 10 to 17-year-olds since 1999 (a) a parenting order has also been applied and (b) no parenting order has been applied; [71744]
(3) how many custodial sentences have been imposed on 10 to 17-year-olds for breaching conditions of an antisocial behaviour order since 1999; [71745]
(4) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to 10 to 17-year-olds since 1999, broken down by (a) local authority and (b) offence; [72417]
(5) what the maximum length of time is for which the terms of an antisocial behaviour order can apply to a child under 18 years; [72280]
(6) how many under 18-year-olds have a criminal record as a result of breaches of the terms of an antisocial behaviour order. [72282]
Mr. McNulty
[holding answer 18 May 2006]: From commencement, 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000,
Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) data were collected on aggregate numbers only by police force area. Tables A to H give the number of ASBOs issued to 10 to17-year-olds at all courts, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 June 2000 to 30 September 2005 (latest available), by individual age and the local authority area in which prohibitions have been imposed. Data collated centrally for statistical purposes do not identify the type of antisocial behaviour that led to the issuing of an ASBO.
ASBO breach data only cover breach proceedings where there has been a conviction. These data are available at criminal justice system area level only and are currently available from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2003 for ASBOs issued since 1 June 2000. During this period, of the 392 persons aged 10 to 17 convicted for breaching their ASBO, on one or more occasions, 179 received a custodial sentence, of which 30 were for breach of ASBO alone. Within the same period and, as notified to the Home Office, no notification was received of the breach of an ASBO made at the same time as a parenting order.
The minimum duration of an ASBO is two years but there is no maximum period. It is for the court to decide the duration of the order depending on the severity of the anti social behaviour. The latest published figures up to September 2005 show that 62 per cent of anti social behaviour orders issued to young people aged 10 to 17 were for a period of less than three years. On 20 December 2005 we announced that we would put on a statutory footing the exisiting good practice guidance that agencies should conduct a one year review of ASBOs issued to children and young people, in order to ensure that they are receiving the help and support they need in order to avoid breaching the terms of the ASBOs.
In addition, it is always open to the defendant or the applicant authority to go back to the court to vary or discharge the ASBO if one or more of the terms is no longer needed or needs strengthening.
Copies of all the relevant tables have been placed in the Library.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been issued with an antisocial behaviour order in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London since its inception. [73127]
Mr. McNulty: Data on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are available at criminal justice system area and local government authority (LGA) area level only. A table giving annual data on the number of ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, up to 30 September 2005 (latest available), broken down by the LGA area in which restrictions are imposed is available on the Crime Reduction website at www.crimereduction.gov.uk.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in (a) Coventry South and (b) the Midlands since 2002. [72304]
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 23 May 2006]: Data on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are available at criminal justice system area and local government authority (LGA) area level only. A table giving annual data on the number of ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, up to 30 September 2005 (latest available), broken down by the LGA area in which restrictions are imposed is available on the crime reduction website at www.crimereduction.gov.uk.
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual support orders attached to antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in each local authority area. [72441]
Mr. McNulty: The available information is in the following table.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how relevant requests made to the non-emergency 101 number will be passed on to services provided by local authorities. [60105]
Mr. McNulty: 101, the single non-emergency number will be delivered by local authorities and police working in partnership to handle calls and coordinate corresponding services. They will agree which partner is responsible for delivering which service. Requests for service will be passed to each partner accordingly in the most effective way using either existing information technology infrastructure and capability or through the provision of new solutions where necessary or appropriate.
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders have been breached since December 2004. [71832]
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 18 May 2006]: Information notified to the Home Office Court Proceedings Database shows that 21 breach proceedings leading to conviction occurred for parenting orders during 2004, three of them in December.
Data for 2005 are not yet available.
Asylum Claims (Effect of Prison Sentence)
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a prison sentence affects an individual's outstanding claim for asylum; and if he will make a statement. [73346]
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 24 May 2006]: The Refugee Convention contains a number of exclusion provisions under which claimants will be refused asylum even if they have a fear of persecution in their own country.
Where an individual has committed a crime in the UK consideration will be given to the application of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention. This provides that an asylum seeker or recognised refugee may be expelled where there are reasonable grounds for regarding them as a danger to national security or who, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community.
Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides an interpretation of Article 33(2) and defines the term “particularly serious crime” as one for which the person concerned has received a sentence of imprisonment of at least two years, or has been convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State, whatever the length of sentence imposed. It also contains a rebuttable presumption that such a person is a danger to the community.
A claimant would also be refused asylum where the crime committed is a crime against peace a war crime or a crime against humanity, or where it involves acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |