Animals listed in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act may only be used if obtained from designated breeders and or suppliers. Schedule 2 lists: mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, dog, cat, primate, quail, ferrets, gerbils, pigs if genetically modified and sheep if genetically modified.
Such animals must, unless an exemption is granted, be obtained from designated breeders and suppliers in the United Kingdom. All of these designated breeders and suppliers are required to comply with the conditions of issue of a Certificate of Designation issued under the 1986 Act, to comply with Home Office codes of practice and are subject to regular inspection by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. All users must keep records of the source and disposal of protected animals. These records are available to the Home Office on request. Additional administrative controls require that, unless otherwise authorised by the Secretary of State, breeding and supplying designated establishments may only obtain animals of the types listed in schedule 2 from other designated sources. Applicants seeking permission to obtain such animals from non-designated sources are generally required to demonstrate that no suitable animal can be obtained from a designated source. Suitability may be determined by particular factors including strain, age, weight and health status.
There are additional controls for the acquisition and use of non-human primates. Approval for the acquisition of non-human primates from overseas, or from other non-designated sources, will only be given if the conditions at the breeding or supplying centre are acceptable to the Home Office. The Home Office has detailed knowledge of the standards and practices of the overseas breeders that supply captive bred non-human primates to UK laboratories, in advance of their being used, and they are subject to periodic visits by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. Approval is also conditional upon lifetime health records being supplied with the animals and made available to the Home Office upon request. Project licence holders must maintain and make available to the Home Office, on request, records relating to the non-designated centres from which the animals are obtained. Each batch of animals acquired from overseas must be separately authorised, and the transport arrangements must be acceptable to the Home Office. The Home Office must also be supplied with details of the health status of the animals on, and after, arrival at the designated establishment.
Requests to use animals of the types specified in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act from non-designated sources are generally treated on a case-by-case basis, the Secretary of State being able to grant exemptions to the requirement that they be obtained from approved breeders in the United Kingdom when he believes this is justified.
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were carried out in Scotland in 2005; 
(2) what proportion of the regulated procedures conducted in Scotland in 2005 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were performed by (a) public health laboratories, (b) universities and medical schools, (c) national health service hospitals, (d) Government Departments, (e) other public bodies, (f) non-profit making organisations and (g) commercial organisations; 
(3) how many of the regulated procedures conducted in Scotland in 2005 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involved (a) cats, (b) dogs, (c) rabbits, (d) horses and other equids, (e) new world primates and (f) old world primates; and how many involved (i) genetically modified animals and (ii) animals with a harmful genetic defect; 
(4) how many (a) mice, (b) rats, (c) guinea pigs, (d) hamsters, (e) rabbits, (f) horses and other equids, (g) sheep, (h) pigs, (i) birds, (j) amphibians, (k) reptiles, (l) fish, (m) cats, (n) dogs, (o) new world primates and (p) old world primates were used in regulated procedures conducted in Scotland in 2005 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; 
(5) what proportion of the project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that were in force in Scotland at the end of 2005 were in the (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified severity banding; 
Joan Ryan: Comprehensive statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain of animals carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are published annually. Copies of the publication for 2005 (Cm 6877) can be found in the Library.
The data is not collected, stored or presented in a way enabling it to be easily broken down between England, Wales and Scotland as the 1986 Act is administered by the Home Office for the whole of Great Britain (it is administered separately in Northern Ireland). A special exercise has therefore been conducted to isolate the information requested in relation to Scotland.
During 2005, in Scotland, universities and medical schools carried out 62 per cent. of the regulated procedures under the 1986 Act, Government Departments 3 per cent., other public bodies 15 per cent. and commercial organisations 20 per cent. Public health laboratories, NHS hospitals and non-profit making organisations did not carry out any regulated procedures.
During 2005, in Scotland, there were four regulated procedures involving cats conducted under the 1986 Act, 1,723 involving dogs, 6,938 involving rabbits, 69 involving horses and other equids, 79 involving new world primates, 1,306 involving old world primates, 128,561 involving genetically modified animals and 11,048 involving animals with a harmful genetic defect.
During 2005, in Scotland, 267,960 mice, 49,284 rats, 2,944 guinea pigs, 774 hamsters, 3,016 rabbits, 69 horse and other equids, 5,294 sheep, 941 pigs, 7,854 birds, 238 amphibians, 56,993 fish, four cats, 1,308 dogs, 46 new world primates and 864 old world primates were used in regulated procedures under the 1986 Act. No reptiles were used.
During 2005, in Scotland, 39 per cent. of the project licences granted under the 1986 Act that were in force at the end of 2005 were in a mild severity banding, 57 per cent. in moderate, 2 per cent. in substantial and 2 per cent. in an unclassified severity banding.
Mr. Byrne: Once a family has been removed, immigration officers inform the school or the local education authority that the children will no longer be attending. The immigration service also updates internal computer systems with this information and informs housing providers by letter.
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 22 June 2006, Official Report, column 2113W, on asylum/immigration, how many enforced removals to Iran have taken place since 2004. 
Mr. Byrne: The latest published information on removal of asylum seekers covers the first quarter of 2006. The following table shows the number of principal asylum applicants removed to Iran since 2004, broken down into voluntary and enforced removals.
|Principal asylum applicants removed from the United Kingdom, to Iran, from 2004 to Q1 2006( 1,2)
|Q1 2006( 3)
|(1 )Figures rounded to the nearest five, and may not sum due to rounding.
(2 )Provisional figures.
(3) Removals since 2005 include those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.
(4 )Persons who had sought asylum at some stage, excluding dependants.
(5 )Includes persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them, and voluntary departures.
(6 )Excludes assisted voluntary returns.
(7 )Persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. May include some on-entry cases and some cases where enforcement action has been initiated.
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an independent investigation into conditions in immigration detention centres; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are being held in immigration detention centres; how many of these have been held for more than three months; and how many are unaccompanied. 
Mr. Byrne: As at 25 March 2006, and rounded to the nearest five, there were 50 persons recorded as being under 18, detained solely under Immigration Act powers, of whom five had been in detention for more than three months. Information on the number of unaccompanied minors detained is not held centrally and therefore unavailable.
Mr. McNulty: The boundaries of basic command units (BCUs) are determined by the responsible chief constable. Of some 225 BCUs we understand that all but six are either coterminous with a single district council or London borough, or are coterminous with a number of district councils when taken together, or when combined with a number of other BCUs are coterminous with a single council.
Mr. McNulty: The boundaries of basic command Units (BCU) are determined by the responsible chief constable. I have placed in the Library a table detailing which local authorities constitute the whole or part of each BCU in England and Wales as at April 2006.
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the requirements are for (a) Commonwealth and (b) other foreign nationals serving in the armed forces to qualify to apply for British citizenship. 
The requirements for foreign Commonwealth nationals applying for British citizenship, who are also serving members of the armed forces, are the same as for any other foreign national applying for citizenship. They must make a successful application for naturalisation under sections 6(1) or 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The statutory requirements for naturalisation are set out in that Act and are summarised in the guide for applicants that
accompanies application forms. Policy and procedures for handling applications is available for viewing on the IND website: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Departments estimate is of the proportion of crime associated with car boot sales; and what steps he is taking to counteract such crime. 
Although we are aware that many people greatly enjoy attending car boot fairs, they are one of the places used by criminals to profit from crime. A number of enforcement agencies including the police and trading standards routinely act to tackle crime at car boot sales, just as in other areas, but we recognise that it can be difficult to assert consumer and other rights in such informal channels.
In recognition of those difficulties, the Government are seeking to amend the Enterprise Act to enable public authorities to disclose information for civil proceedings. This will enhance the protection of Intellectual Property Rights and redress for consumer harm.
We are also proposing to consult widely on how best to work with traders in second-hand goods to disrupt markets for stolen goods. That consultation will also seek views on how best to work with the organisers of occasional sales such as car boot fairs to reduce the opportunities for criminals to benefit from attending such events.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of cargo shipments are checked for the presence of explosives at (a) ports and (b) other locations in the UK; and if he will make a statement. 
It is not Government policy to comment in detail on, or provide information relating to, methods employed to counter terrorist attacks. The UK complies fully with all relevant and international regulations in respect of ports, airports and the channel tunnel. We keep our measures under continuous review in the light of the current threat.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to improve the detection of officials who breach official guidelines or the code of conduct; and what instructions he has issued concerning disciplinary procedures for those officials. 
John Reid: Responsibility for investigating all allegations of corruption has been centralised, increased investment in data mining capability has been provided and the development of a new code of conduct for staff in the Public Inquiry Office who deal directly with members of the public is due to be implemented.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 2005 Essex police attended incidents at the Colchester garrison; and how many such occasions there have been in 2006. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what process will be followed if a councillor does not respond to a Community Call for Action under the provisions outlined in the Police and Justice Act 2006. 
Mr. McNulty: The Community Call for Action will enable local communities to trigger action by the police or other local agencies where they have failed to tackle persistent local crime or antisocial behaviour problems. Under clause 18(3) of the Police and Justice Bill, ward councillors will be under a duty to respond to a call for action. We expect most problems referred to a councillor to be resolved informally through discussion with the relevant local agency with only the most difficult problems being referred to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. Where a councillor decides not to refer a matter to the overview and scrutiny committee, clause 18(4) provides that the person raising the problem may refer it to the local authority executive for consideration. The council executive will have the same rights as the councillor to liaise with the relevant agencies and to refer difficult issues to the overview and scrutiny committee for resolution.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a (a) district council and (b) county council scrutiny committee will consider a Community Call for Action in a two-tier local government area. 
Mr. McNulty: Under the provisions of clause 19 of the Police and Justice Bill (as amended on Lords Report) district council overview and scrutiny committees will be responsible for considering Community Calls for Action in two-tier areas.