| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
26 Feb 2008 : Column WA105
Written Answers
Tuesday 26 February 2008
Anti-social Behaviour: Ultrasonic Dispersal Devices
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received on the indiscriminate use of ultrasonic dispersal devices as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour; what replies have been sent; and what action they will take on this matter.[HL1953]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Home Office have received a range of representations and correspondence concerning the use of the “Mosquito” ultrasonic dispersal device. Five were from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents, 15 Questions have been asked by three Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and 13 items of correspondence from members of the public and local authorities have been received. Of the representations and correspondence received, five were concerned that the device might breach a person's human rights and two were concerned with the legality of the device. Other questions and correspondence received referred to the use of the device and whether the Home Office will provide guidance.
The Home Office encourages local agencies to consider the full range of innovations, schemes and practices intended to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. It is for local agencies such as the police and local authorities to decide on the most appropriate interventions to tackle anti-social behaviour based on their knowledge of what works best locally, adopting a tiered approach to tackling anti-social behaviour using a blend of measures to provide a proportionate response.
The Home Office does not recommend or promote any commercial ultrasonic dispersal device or venture and at the present time does not have any plans to take further action on this matter.
Armed Forces: Alternative Landing Ships Logistics
Lord Burnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
How long it has taken to construct the alternate landing ships logistics; and what has been the cost of these vessels. [HL2005]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The four landing ship dock (auxiliary) (LSD(A))vessels, which were formerly known as the alternative landing ships logistics, were all built over a seven-year period between December 2000 and November 2007. Each vessel took between four and five years to construct.
26 Feb 2008 : Column WA106
A table showing the most recently published construction costs, which totalled £596 million (£342 million for the two vessels provided by Swan Hunter and £255 million for the two provided by BAES) is available at Part 4 (page 13) of the National Audit Office report into the LSD(A) project. This was published in November 2007 and can be found on the internet at www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/070898iii.pdf. A copy is also available in the Library of the House. Due to the complexity of the two contracts, neither provided separate costs for the individual vessels.
Army: Prisoner Handling
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of the audit conducted by the director of operational capability into the Army's training for prisoner handling, which reported to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in November 2007; and whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of this audit. [HL1740]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The Directorate of Operational Capability's (DOC) ability to carry out its role as an independent auditor is dependent on the willingness of service personnel to share their thoughts in a candid manner on the understanding that they will remain private. I am therefore withholding the information requested as its disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice.
The noble Lord will be aware that the Ministry of Defence recently published the Aitken report, an investigation into cases of deliberate abuse and unlawful killing in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.
The Ministry of Defence has this week received representations from public interest lawyers over the form of any future inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa. The Defence Secretary will consider those representations along with the other material and his decision will be announced in a Ministerial Statement in due course.
Asylum Seekers: Children
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have removed from the United Kingdom any children with failed asylum applications; if so, how many; and to which countries.[HL1945]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The accompanying table shows the number of children recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage (as principal applicants and as dependants of principal applicants) who were removed from the UK in 2006, broken down by
26 Feb 2008 : Column WA107
An unaccompanied child under the age of 18 would not be considered for removal from the UK unless it has been established with the country to which the child is to be removed that adequate reception arrangements are in place. Officers must liaise with social services and/or the nominated guardian with responsibility for the care of the child in the UK to ensure the removal is effected in the most sensitive manner possible.
A child under the age of 18 recorded as being a principal asylum applicant may not necessarily be unaccompanied; they could, for example, be living with a relative who, in turn, may or may not have status in the UK.
National statistics on asylum removals during 2007 will be published in the “Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2007” bulletin on 26 February and will be available from the Library of the House and the Home Office's research, development and statistics website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
(1) Includes enforced removals, persons refused entry at port and subsequently removed (including cases dealt with at juxtaposed controls), persons departing voluntarily following enforcement action initiated against them, persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.
(2) Persons recorded as being under 18 on their date of removal from the UK. These figures may overstate because some applicants aged 18 or over may claim to be younger on their date of removal.
(3) Figures rounded to the nearest five, ( - = 0, * = 1 or 2). Figures may not sum to the totals shown because of rounding.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |