Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of area curfew schemes for young people to combat criminal and antisocial behaviour. 
However, between January 2004 and 1 April 2006, the police have used the power in section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act to disperse unruly groups in over 1,000 designated areas. In these areas, the police have succeeded in tackling underage drinking, joyriding, noise nuisance, the antisocial use of fireworks and the harassment and intimidation of residents.
Section 30 also gives the police power to return to their homes young people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places in such areas after 9 pm. A young person may have a legitimate reason for being out at night unsupervised and the power to return young people to their homes is discretionary: it is not a curfew.
This power protects young people from the risks posed by being unsupervised at night in public places within particular areas where they might get involved in, or become victims of, antisocial behaviour and helps the police to protect local communities from the alarm and distress that unsupervised young people can cause. Statistics for police exercising the power to return home young people under 16 are not available.
The section 30 powers are not intended to be used in isolation, but should form part of an integrated response to tackling crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour in local areas. This includes work by YOTs to prevent young people getting involved in offending and antisocial behaviour.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many owners of dogs registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs have been prosecuted since 1991 under (a) section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and (b) the Dogs Act 1871. 
Mr. Coaker: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of people proceeded against at magistrates court under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and the Dogs Act 1871 in England and Wales, 1991 to 2005, is shown in the following tables.
The database, however, does not record whether any of the people proceeded against were owners of dogs registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs. Neither does the Index of Exempted Dogs record whether an owner of a dog on the index has been subject to any court proceedings.
|Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates court for offences relating to section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and the Dogs Act 1871, in England and Wales, 1991-2005( 1, 2)
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Offence codes for Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 were introduced to the court proceeding database from 1 January 1992.
RDS Office for Criminal Justice Reform
Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people (a) charged and (b) convicted in each of the last five years (i) were not UK citizens, (ii) did not hold a valid British driving licence and (iii) had not applied for a British driving test. 
Mr. Coaker: Information on the individual circumstances of offenders is not held on the Court Proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, therefore the requested information is unavailable.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) budget allocation is for each intensive DIP area in 2007-08; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: Over £500 million has been invested as part of the Drug Interventions Programme since its inception in 2003. Record numbers of offenders are entering treatment through the programme and drug related acquisitive crime has reduced substantially. The DIP Main Grant, which is the key mechanism for allocating budgets to areas, is being allocated to intensive areas as in the following table.
|Indicative intensive area budgets 2007-08