Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the Ministerial letter of 31 January 2006 responding to the recommendations within the Animal Procedures Committees 2005 report on the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, if she will make a statement on her Departments commitment to explore the scope available to make the Home Offices RDSD database fully searchable by public stakeholders. 
Meg Hillier: The Home Office is currently looking at ways of making statistics available on the internet. This project is still in the developmental stage and a decision will be made on the Animal Procedures Committee recommendation once the work has been completed and trialed.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were under surveillance by criminal justice agencies in the UK at the most recent date for which figures are available. 
Figures in relation to surveillance are published in the annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, a copy of which is in the House Library. Law enforcement agencies were granted
some 16,651 directed surveillance and 350 intrusive authorisations during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, the most recent period for which figures are available. Figures for intelligence agency use of these powers are not published in the interests of national security.
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 15 November, Official Report, column 682W, on terrorism, which countries have proscribed Hizb-ut-Tahrir; and what account she has taken of these countries' positions in his decision on the position of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the UK. 
Pakistan (pending an appeal)
We examine all relevant information about an organisation, including any action taken by other countries and the basis for that action if known, when an organisation is under consideration for proscription. I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 November 2007, Official Report, column 682W for the statutory and other tests which must be applied in proscription cases. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the deliberations which may or may not have occurred in respect of organisations not on the proscribed list, except to say that Hizb-ut-Tahrir remains an organisation of concern and is kept under close review.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times terrorist suspects have been held in pre-charge detention for (a) 28 days, (b) 27 days, (c) 26 days, (d) 25 days, (e) 24 days, (f) 23 days, (g) 22 days, (h) 21 days, (i) 20 days and (j) 19 days in each year since the 28 day maximum came into effect; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 6 February 2008]: The Terrorism Act 2006 extended the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days with effect from 25 July 2006. Statistics compiled from police records show that to date 11 individuals have been held for over 14 days pre-charge (10 in 2006 and 1 in 2007).
Of these, nine were arrested following Operation Overt, the disruption of an alleged plot to target aircraft. One individual was charged on the 27-28 day of detention following his arrest in a counter terrorist operation led by Greater Manchester Police and one individual was charged on the 18-19 day of detention following his arrest in relation to the incidents in London and Glasgow.
|Period of detention
|No of persons held
|Released without charge
Mr. Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many of the criminal offences created by (a) the Terrorism Act 2000, (b) the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, (c) the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and (d) the Terrorism Act 2006 have (i) no arrests been made (ii) no prosecutions laid and (iii) no convictions gained. 
Mr. McNulty: The power of arrest in section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows police to arrest a person upon reasonable suspicion of being a terrorist, which is defined in section 40. It also allows arrests to be made at an earlier stage than if there was a requirement for suspicion of a specific offence. There is no power of arrest under any of the other Acts mentioned.
Mr. Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are awaiting trial for people charged with offences under (a) the Terrorism Act 2000, (b) the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, (c) the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and (d) the Terrorism Act 2006. 
The information is not broken down in the manner requested. Since 11 September 2001 to 31 March 2007, there have been 1,228 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 and under other legislation, where the investigation was conducted as a terrorist investigation. Of those arrested, 132 were charged with terrorism legislation offences only, 109 were charged with terrorism legislation offences and other criminal offences and 195 were charged under other legislation including murder, grievous bodily harm, firearms, explosives offences, fraud, false documents Of those charged 114 were awaiting trial on 31 March 2007. Statistics are compiled from police records and are subject to change as cases go through the system.
Mr. Coaker: The UK Football Policing Unit undertakes a range of co-ordination and infrastructure functions related to the role of the police in preventing and tackling English and Welsh football disorder at home and abroad. The UKFPU incorporates the Football Banning Orders Authority and the UK National Football Information Point required under EU provisions. There are currently six police officers seconded to the unit in addition to a British Transport police liaison officer.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people received state provided counselling as a result of being the victim of crime in (a) Romford, (b) Greater London and (c) Essex in 2007. 
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police (a) cautions and (b) arrests were recorded for retailers selling (i) video games and (ii) DVDs to underage customers in each year since 1997; and what average fine was levied for subsequent convictions in each case. 
Mr. McNulty: Statistics on the number of police cautions issued, the number of fines imposed and the average fines have been provided by the Ministry of Justice and are given in the following table for 1997 to 2006. Data on those arrested are not available.
|Offenders( 1) cautioned and fined for supplying video recording of classified work in breach of classification( 2)
|Number of police cautions issued
|Number of fines imposed
|Average fine amount (£)
|(1) These data are on a principal offence basis.
(2) Video Recording Act 1984 S.11 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.88(4).
These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
RDS-NOMS, Ministry of Justice
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much West Midlands Police Authority has received from central funds in each of the last 10 years; how much its precept has been set at for 2008-09; and at what rate the precept will be levied upon local householders. 
|West Midlands police authority central funding since 1997-98
|Government grant( 1) (£ million)
|(1) Revenue funding includes all grants inside aggregate external finance (AEF) (i.e. revenue grants paid for councils core services), and includes formula grant and all specific grants.
(2) In 2005-06, figures were adjusted for comparison purposes following the transfer of pensions and security funding from general grant in 2006-07.
(3) 2006-07 Government grant figures are provisional outturn figures. 2007-08 figures are budget figures.