---

18 Jan 2007 : Column 1288W—continued

Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breaches of antisocial behaviour orders have given rise to action by the police in Lancashire. [116114]

Mr. McNulty: Since 1 June 2000 the Court Proceedings Database within the Office for Criminal Justice Reform indicates that, by the end of 2005, 804 offences of having breached an ASBO had been proven in court within the Lancashire criminal justice area. Information about police action in connection with these breaches is not collected centrally.

Banks: Security

Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to make banks responsible for fraudulent transactions online. [116712]

Mr. Coaker: Rules which cover responsibility for meeting the cost of fraudulent online transactions are made by the card schemes and are matters for individual merchants and their banks. This is not something in which the Government would intervene.

The Government take the problem of card fraud very seriously and work closely with the finance and retail sectors and the police. The Home Office is represented on an industry-led Steering Group which aims to tackle ‘Card Not Present’ (CNP) fraud (which includes online fraud). We support practical measures being introduced by the industry to increase levels of security for internet transactions. These include Address Verification Services (AVS) and the Card Security Code (CSC), along with Mastercard Secure Code and Verified by Visa, which require password verification for internet transactions.

Brothels

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects of introducing licensed and regulated brothels in certain areas. [114315]

Mr. Sutcliffe: As part of our wide-ranging public consultation on prostitution (‘Paying the Price’, published in July 2004) we considered the option of introducing a scheme to license or regulate brothels. We assessed the impact of such schemes introduced in other jurisdictions and invited comments from those responding to the consultation.

18 Jan 2007 : Column 1289W

We received 861 responses to the consultation. Following analysis of the available evidence and the responses to the consultation we are unconvinced that such a scheme would bring about real improvements in terms of the safety of those involved, and of the wider community. Our assessment is set out in full in the ‘Coordinated Prostitution Strategy and a summary of responses to Paying the Price’ published in January 2006.

However, significant concerns emerged about the particular vulnerability of those who work alone. The coordinated strategy on prostitution published in January 2006 included a proposal to amend the definition of a brothel to allow women to work in pairs, or with a maid. We intend to consult further on this proposal and an announcement will be made in due course.

The strategy recognises that there are different models of prostitution and aims to challenge the existence of street-based sex markets, as well as all
18 Jan 2007 : Column 1290W
forms of commercial sexual exploitation. It includes specific measures aimed at reducing the numbers of people, particularly young people, drawn into prostitution, as well as improving the support available for those already involved to find routes out.

Dangerous Dogs Act

Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in London were prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each year from 1992 to 2006. [115155]

Mr. McNulty: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of people prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the Metropolitan and City of London Police Force Area, from 1992 to 2005, is shown in the following tables.

Figures for 2006 will be available in the autumn.

Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates court for offences relating to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, in the Metropolitan and City of London police force area, 1992-2005( 1, 2)
Statute	Offence description	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person.	65	94	68	53	29	35	46
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person.	9	4	5	4	4	5	5
Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Dogs Act 1871 Sec 2	Failure to comply with an order to keep a dog under proper control etc. Dangerous dog not kept under proper control.	65	36	18	23	24	24	17
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(a)	Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.	9	2	—	1	2	1	—
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(d)	Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.	103	39	15	11	6	5	4
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(e)	Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.	9	7	8	2	2	1	—
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(3)	Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.	100	93	31	20	10	9	13
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.	70	67	50	31	21	24	15
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non- public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.	7	10	—	3	1	—	—
Total		437	352	195	148	99	104	100

18 Jan 2007 : Column 1291W

18 Jan 2007 : Column 1292W

Statute	Offence description	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person.	45	53	58	59	63	64	58
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person.	1	3	2	2	4	2	1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Dogs Act 1871 Sec 2	Failure to comply with an order to keep a dog under proper control etc. Dangerous dog not kept under proper control.	12	11	14	14	4	8	4
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(a)	Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.	—	1	1	6	—	1	—
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(d)	Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.	1	2	4	2	1	1	—
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(e)	Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.	2	—	—	—	—	—	—
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(3)	Possession, without exemption, of a. Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.	9	3	2	1	1	1	1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.	19	28	29	16	19	13	19
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3)	Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non- public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.	2	2	1	—	3	—	1
Total		91	103	111	100	95	90	84

---