| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Nov 2009 : Column 414W—continued
Smith Institute
Mr. Maude: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what payments her Department has made to the Smith Institute in the last 36 months. [299461]
Angela E. Smith: The Cabinet Office has not made any payments to the Smith Institute in the last 36 months.
Home Department
Acceptable Behaviour Contracts: Bexley
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many acceptable behaviour contracts have been (a) agreed and (b) breached in the London Borough of Bexley in each year since their inception. [298113]
Mr. Alan Campbell: Acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) are non-statutory, voluntary agreements which are normally made between a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour and an antisocial behaviour agency or school.
Data on ABCs are collected by the Home Office through a voluntary survey of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships' (CDRPs) use of antisocial behaviour tools and powers. The latest published data indicate that 23 ABCs were made in Bexley between October 2003 and September 2008. Data on breach of ABCs are not collected by the Home Office.
Animal Welfare
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department operates to ensure that veterinary surgeons do not have conflicts of interest under section 6(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [298323]
Meg Hillier: Section 3.19 of the guidance of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC321) stipulates that when a named veterinary surgeon (NVS) has under any other statutory role under the terms of the 1986 Act a substantial interest in the scientific outcome of a programme of work, alternative provision should be made for the veterinary oversight of the animals in question.
Where the named veterinary surgeon holds a project licence, a different veterinary surgeon should be nominated to perform the duties of the named veterinary surgeon for that project.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 require the substances or products which may be tested on animals to be specified. [298337]
Meg Hillier:
It is not Home Office practice to authorise individual studies. Instead, the relevant project licences permit the testing of specified classes of materials, such as medical and veterinary materials and chemicals, using specified methods, generally conducted according to international test guidelines. In addition the licences
specify the checks that will be made about what is already known about the substance to be tested and the order in which the tests may be done. Other than in the case of vaccines or other biological materials requiring batch testing, such licences do not usually name each substance in a particular class.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether licensees are required to obtain the specific approval of his Department before testing a particular substance on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [298338]
Meg Hillier: Licensees are not required to obtain the specific approval of his Department before testing a particular substance on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
It is not Home Office practice to authorise individual studies. Instead, the relevant project licences permit the testing of specified classes of materials, such as medical and veterinary materials and chemicals, using specified methods, generally conducted according to international test guidelines. In addition the licences specify the checks that will be made about what is already known about the substance to be tested and the order in which the tests may be done. Other than in the case of vaccines or other biological materials requiring batch testing, such licences do not usually name each substance in a particular class.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 he has rejected on the grounds that the procedures would cause severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated in each year since 2004. [297978]
Meg Hillier: We do not hold the information requested. A feature of the regulatory regime under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the discussion that often takes place at an early stage between applicants (or prospective applicants) and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. When serious deficiencies are discovered with the proposals during these early discussions with the local inspectors, or within the establishments' local ethical review processes, proposals unlikely to meet the Act's stringent requirements are revised or withdrawn before formal refusal becomes necessary.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department issues guidance on the use of live animals for the purposes of training in (a) cervical dislocation and (b) injecting procedures carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [297979]
Meg Hillier: Standard condition 17 for designated scientific procedure establishments in appendix B of the guidance of the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 stipulates that the certificate holder is responsible for assuring competence for a non-regulated procedure such as humane killings by methods listed in schedule 1 of the 1986 Act.
Section 3.12 of the guidance stipulates that the project licence holder must ensure that personal licensees working under their control are adequately supervised and trained
and that regulated procedures such as injecting substances are competently performed in accordance with the project licence authorities.
The training framework for those with key responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is set out in annex F of the guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Module 2 of the Animal Research Training Course provides training on humane methods of killing appropriate to the relevant species and on the job training provides practical skills which would include injection techniques. The Home Office has also issued a code of practice-The Humane Killing of Animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Only those with appropriate personal licence authorities may lawfully perform regulated procedures on protected animals and other than a limited range of specialist procedures project licences are not issued for training in manual skills.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Bolton South East of 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 232W, on the Home Office, what steps he has taken to ensure that botulinium toxin tested on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is not used off-label for cosmetic purposes. [297980]
Meg Hillier: The Government's position has not changed. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 the Home Office grants licences for the testing on live animals of botulinium toxin for products licensed for clinical purposes as a prescription-only medicine.
The Home Office does not license the use of animals for the testing of cosmetic ingredients or products.
The off-label use of botulinium toxin products manufactured for therapeutic purposes is not a matter over which the Home Office has any control. Regulation of the uses made of health care products is a matter for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is an executive agency of the Department of Health.
Antisocial Behaviour
Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to reduce levels of antisocial behaviour. [297982]
Mr. Alan Campbell: Over the past 12 years we have introduced a wide range of tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour which are being used by practitioners to bring relief to communities across the country. We are committed to driving down antisocial behaviour by supporting victims and making all local partners take fast and effective action against it.
On 13 October we announced a package of measures to improve the collective response to ASB, building on the Government's success in driving down antisocial behaviour. These are:
Encouraging Crime and disorder reduction partnerships to make full use of the use of tools and powers;
Challenging all CDRPs to set minimum local service standards so that the public have a clear set of commitments and know what they can hold agencies accountable for;
Stepping up action on breach of ASBOs including through better case management, increased publicity and the use of community impact statements;
Ensuring effective links between neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood management teams to resolve ASB in the community;
A new deal for victims and witnesses of ASB including extension of Victim Support service to victims and witnesses bringing ASB cases in the magistrates courts; funding for 85 new victims champions in pioneer areas, and those where people have high perceptions of antisocial behaviour; and
A national training campaign for ASB coordinators to improve their victim work.
In addition, the Policing Pledge, which puts the police on the side of victims, will be strengthened in the White Paper.
Antisocial Behaviour Orders
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date his Department's qualitative review of anti-social behaviour orders commenced; which matters are being analysed as part of the review; what estimate he has made of the cost of the review; what methodology is being used; and when he expects (a) the study to be completed and (b) the review to be published. [297148]
Mr. Alan Campbell: The Home Office has commissioned two pieces of work evaluating interventions to tackle antisocial behaviour. These are:
Research to examine local variations in the use of antisocial behaviour interventions. This work was conducted by Ipsos MORI and comprised a survey sent to all CDRP ASB co-ordinators and multi stakeholder focus groups within eight CDRPs. All sites that participated in the focus groups were informed that the details of areas and individuals involved would remain anonymous to facilitate the open sharing of views and prevent identification of individuals involved.
This research project contract costs were £37,700 and the field work was conducted between February and May 2008. The findings of this study will be published in due course.
An evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of interventions to address antisocial behaviour. This started in December 2008 and results from this evaluation are due in early 2010. A mixed methodology has been used in this study with a quantitative data exercise to meet the PAC recommendation of gathering information on the extent to which individual and situational characteristics influence the effectiveness of interventions to tackle ASB. Qualitative data has been collected through interviews and case files reviews.
Once again all sites that participated in the qualitative research were informed that the details of areas and individuals involved would remain anonymous to facilitate open sharing of views and to prevent the identification of both victims and perpetrators of ASB. Contract costs for the project are £200,463. The research will be published in due course.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders in each category are in force in relation to residents of (a) Peterborough constituency, (b) Peterborough City Council area and (c) Cambridgeshire. [297790]
Mr. Alan Campbell: The latest available published data on the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued covers the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2007 and are not available below Criminal Justice System (CJS) area level.
The number of ASBOs issued at all courts in the Cambridgeshire Criminal Justice System area on application and the number issued following conviction is 49 and 103 respectively, a total of 152.
ASBOs can be of a fixed duration (for a minimum of two years) or made until further order. It is therefore not possible to determine from centrally collected data how many ASBOs are in force at a particular point in time except by reference to individual court files which could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
Antisocial Behaviour Orders: Bexley
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people under the age of 18 years (a) were given and (b) breached an anti-social behaviour order in the London Borough of Bexley in each year since their inception. [298112]
Mr. Alan Campbell: Data centrally collected by the Ministry of Justice on the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued and breached is not available below Criminal Justice System area level.
Antisocial Behaviour Orders: Children
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to implement the automatic issue of parenting orders following the breach of an anti-social behaviour order by a child. [298493]
Mr. Hanson: We will bring forward legislation to achieve this as soon as parliamentary time allows. Implementation of legislation would entail guidance to the courts and practitioners and would be drawn up in consultation with practitioners and other relevant Government Departments and agencies.
Arrest Warrants
Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European arrest warrants have been issued by the UK police and other authorities in respect of nationals of each other EU member state since January 2004. [295793]
Meg Hillier: The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) are the designated authorities in the UK for the receipt and transmission of European arrest warrants (EAWs).
Since 1 January 2004 until 31 March 2009, UK authorities transmitted 836 EAWs to other EU member states. These resulted in 376 people being surrendered to the UK.
It is not possible from current systems to break down this data into the nationality of the subject. A breakdown of data by nationality of the subject could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European arrest warrants followed by extradition have been issued by each EU member state since 2004. [295864]
Meg Hillier: The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) are the designated authorities in the UK for the receipt and transmission of European arrest warrants (EAWs). SOCA cannot comment on the number EAWs transmitted between other EU member states.
SOCA is only able to provide details of EAW requests processed by the agency and formerly by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. These figures were given in a previous reply on 9 June 2009, Official Report, columns 814-15W.
Asylum
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers who will present at the UK Border Agency in Croydon once it becomes the central place of presentation. [295171]
Mr. Woolas: Prior to Croydon being designated as the single site for the screening of in country asylum applicants, Liverpool ASU completed an average of five to 10 asylum screening appointments per day for main asylum applicants. This is the number of extra people who will be expected now to make their claim in Croydon.
Croydon ASU saw an average of 39 applications daily prior to its designation as the single site for screening of in country applicants.
Since 14 October the highest number of applications seen in a week has been 42.
Richard Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the written ministerial statement of 13 October 2009, Official Report, columns 20-21WS, on asylum, on what grounds he decided that the asylum screening unit in Croydon should be the only location at which initial asylum applications may be made; what assessment he has made of the likely effects on Croydon of that decision; and if he will allocate funds to Croydon borough council for the purposes of making provision for an increase in demand on local services consequent on the closure of the Liverpool asylum submissions unit to initial asylum applications. [295519]
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 28 October 2009]: An operational decision was taken to re-designate the asylum screening unit (ASU) in Liverpool to a further submissions unit (FSU). Failed asylum seekers who wish to submit any further submissions now have to do so in person instead of by post, as we believe it is appropriate to see individuals in person when they submit information about their asylum claim, as evidence suggests that the majority of further submissions are not accepted as a fresh claim. We think that requiring people to make further submissions in person will discourage abuse and help us run a more efficient system so that people who are in need of our protection get it without delay.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |