|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Year by month||Unique users|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how substantial suffering, as set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is measured; and what guidance her Department has issued to inspectors on the determination of substantial suffering. 
Guidance on severity assessment is set out in paragraphs 5.40 to 5.49 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC321). The Guidance sets out the factors that must be taken into account by inspectors in exercising
their professional judgment in determining and advising on severity, whether mild, moderate or substantial.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she has received recent representations from the government of the Irish Republic on the grant of British passports and citizenship to Irish citizens living in the United Kingdom. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 6 May 2008]: The issue has been raised by individuals from both Houses, but there have been no recent representations from the government of the Irish Republic on this matter.
Mr. Coaker: A National CCTV Strategy Programme Board has been established. The programme board is reviewing the recommendations of the strategy and Ministers will have the opportunity to approve the work of the Board later this year.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she was consulted in relation to the policy of Lancashire Police of giving free buttered toast to late night revellers to prevent violence; whether she plans to issue guidance to other police forces on the policy of giving food to deter potential troublemakers; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 28 April 2008]: There was no discussion between the Home Office and Lancashire Police on this issue. This is an operational matter for Lancashire Police. The Home Office has no plans to issue guidance on giving food to deter potential troublemakers.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) administration and (b) sanction detections there were in relation to crimes in London in each of the last 10 years. 
Within the recorded crime statistics, administrative detections are referred to as non-sanction detections. The number of non-sanction detections decreased significantly in 2006-07. This reflects a significant shift away from the use of non-sanction detections, where no further action is taken. Sanction detections are now viewed as the preferred measure, providing a more meaningful comparison of police performance.
Some forces have made a policy decision to significantly limit their use of non-sanction detections in recent years. The greater focus on sanction detections was further emphasised by the move to the use of the sanction detection rate within the police performance assessment framework.
|Table 1: Offences detected by the police in London region: 1997|
|Offences recorded||Total detections||Sanction detections||Non-sanction detections|
|(1 )Not available|
(2 )No detections data available for this period
|Table 2: Offences detected by the police in London region: 1998-99 to 2001-02|
|Offences recorded||Total detections||Sanction detections||Non-sanction detections|
|(1) Not available|
1. The coverage was extended and counting rules revised from 1998-99. This will have had an effect on the number of detections recorded. Figures from that date are not comparable with those for 1997.
2. The data in this table is prior to the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard. These figures are not directly comparable with those for later years.
|Table 3: Offences detected by the police in London region: 2002-03 to 2006-07( 1)|
|Offences recorded||Total detections||Sanction detections||Non-sanction detections( 2)|
|(1) The data in this table takes account of the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002. These figures are not directly comparable with those for earlier years.|
(2 )The large increases between 2002-03 and 2005-06 were as a result of positive action by the Metropolitan Police Service to increase the number of non-sanction detections. The issue of new rules from 1 April 2007, have severely limited the number of incidences when they can be applied. The Metropolitan police had anticipated these changes, issuing their own policy during 2006-07 that limited the use of non-sanction detections, this leading to a significant reduction in non-sanction detection numbers for that year.
(3 )It should be noted that non-sanction detections that contribute to the percentage change in detection rates have fallen in recent years reflecting a significant shift by many police forces away from recording detections of crime where no further action is taken. For this reason overall detections rates over time are not fully comparable. From April 1 2007 the rules governing recording of non-sanction detections were revised to reduce the scope within which they can be claimed to a very limited set of circumstances.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment she has made of the extent to which closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) operated (a) by and (b) on behalf of her Department comply (i) with the Data Protection Act (ii) the CCTV Code of Practice published by the Information Commissioner and (iii) relevant BSI standards. 
Mr. Coaker: No overall assessment has been made. It is the responsibility of the individual operators of the systems to ensure that they comply with the Data Protection Act, the CCTV code of practice and the relevant BSI standards.
Mr. Curry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were serving on the boards of the non-departmental public bodies which her Department sponsors at the latest date for which figures are available. 
Mr. Byrne: The Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies 2007 lists the number of people serving on the boards of public bodies as at 31 March 2007. These figures are broken down by individual Departments. Public bodies 2007 can be downloaded from:
Mr. Byrne: The UK Government are supportive of efforts to achieve gender equality and continues to work very closely with both the Womens National Commission and the Womens Budget Group on promoting gender equality within the UK.
The Home Office has a number of development programmes which support gender equality. These include Leaders of the Futurea positive action leadership programme aimed at the most talented staff. The aim is to prepare participants and maximise their potential for entry into the Senior Civil Service (SCS). It is designed for women, minority ethnic, disabled, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) colleagues. More broadly a key aim of the new talent management system introduced for all Grade 6 and 7 staff is to improve SCS diversity.
The department has also established a Diversity Strategy Programme Board to bring together Directors from across the business areas and agencies. The Board closely monitors progress and delivery of our 3-Year Diversity Strategy. We ensure that when selecting search and recruitment consultants that they have a good track record on diversity and produce a diverse long list. We also run events targeting black and minority ethnic, women, disabled and LGB staff into the Home Office at a senior level.
Recruitment costs in the Home Department do not fall to a central budget. The Home Office frequently uses the same companies for recruitment services as it does for other services, including for
example the employment of temporary staff. Although it can identify the total paid to those companies, it cannot separately determine the costs solely relating to recruitment without disproportionate costs.
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time posts in her Department were filled on a temporary basis for a period in excess of six months in each of the last three years. 
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new profiles have been added to the national DNA database since September 2007, broken down by police force; and if she will make a statement. 
Meg Hillier: It is understood that this question refers to the number of crime scene sample profiles added to the National DNA Database, since a separate question has been asked on the number of people added in each month from October 2007 to date.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|