|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Available information relates only to screening breath tests, and their outcome, and the number of convictions for drink driving offences. Detailed information can be found in the Home Office Statistical Publication Motoring Offences and Breath Test Statistics, England and Wales 2004, issue 05/06, tables 18 and 16(b).
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in (a) Worthing and (b) West Sussex for the sale of tobacco to under 16-year-olds since 2000. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 21 November 2006]: Information from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform showing the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for the sale of tobacco to under 16-year-olds, in (a) Worthing and (b) West Sussex local criminal justice areas from 2000-04, are provided in the attached table. During this period, Worthing local criminal justice area was incorporated into West Sussex local criminal justice area.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for the illegal sale of tobacco to persons under 16( 1, 2)|
|2937 Worthing and District Local Criminal Justice Area||2949 Sussex (Western) Local Criminal Justice Area|
|Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(1) 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 police forces and courts. 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.
RDSOffice for Criminal Justice Reform
Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in consulting on the efficacy of the Kent County Council Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: We are proposing to launch a consultation shortly on the findings of the report on the Kent Acts. The consultation will seek views on whether the regulatory aspects of the Kent Acts have wider application, outlining a range of options for effective engagement with second hand goods traders to reduce the market for stolen goods.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to support a ban on primate experiments as part of the European Commissions review of Directive 86/609; and if he will make a statement; 
Joan Ryan: The United Kingdom has no plans to propose measures to end or restrict the use or supply of non-human primates in scientific procedures as part of the current revision of EU Directive 86/609. The development of new drugs and medical and veterinary technologies is still dependent on the information and insights derived from the well designed, properly conducted and carefully regulated use of animals, including primates. There is no immediate prospect of an end to the use of primates while the benefits to humans, animals and the environment outweigh the costs to the animals involved and until there are suitable alternatives available.
We also have no plans to introduce a unilateral ban on the importation of primates from countries with indigenous non-human primate populations as it would close off the supply and use of second generation captive-bred animals from such countries even where the production of such animals for use in the United Kingdom is not dependent on the taking of animals from the wild. Such a ban would also raise potentially complex legal issues with respect to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and European Community Law. The importation of non-human primates is an issue on which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Government Department. The controls in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 relate only to the use of such animals.
Except where the information is already in the public domain, it is not our practice to identify overseas sources of non-human primates. We believe that the activities of the small number of extremists involved in the intimidation of suppliers and licensed establishments provide clear grounds for maintaining this approach. However, I can confirm that during 2005 and 2006 the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (ASPI) visited four overseas non-human primate breeding or supplying centres in the Netherlands, Vietnam and China.
We do not consider the removal of approved status from Nafovanny to provide non-human primates for use in the United Kingdom to be necessary at this time. Nafovannys two main facilities in Long Thanh, Vietnam, have periodically supplied non-human primates (generally second generation captive bred animals) for use in the United Kingdom. However, after an Inspectorate visit in the spring of 2005 identified shortcomings in animal accommodation and
care we informed the breeding centre that once pending orders for animals for use in the United Kingdom were supplied, its status as an approved centre would cease. By the end of 2005 we had received reassurances and evidence that significant improvements had been made. Subject to being satisfied that further additional safeguards and welfare-related measures are in place, we believe it should be able to meet the standards we would expect of such a centre. Should Nafovanny wish to continue to supply animals for use in the United Kingdom we will revisit the relevant facilities.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inspections have been carried out in HM Prisons by human rights and associated organisations in the last six years; and what the (a) duration and (b) purpose was of each inspection. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) conducts regular inspections of all prisons in England and Wales and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (ECPT) also has the right to enter and inspect prisons in the UK.
HMCIP conducts full inspections of adult prisons every five years. In addition, risk-assessed follow-up inspections will take place in between this cycle. Full inspections generally last for five days and short follow- up inspections three days.
The purpose of HMCIP inspections is to inspect the treatment and conditions of prisoners. The inspectorate uses its own published inspection criteria, called expectations, which are informed by internal service standards and instructions, as well as international legal instruments and court judgments. Further information on the purpose of HMCIP inspections, inspection duration and frequency and copies of inspection reports are available on the Inspectorate's website:
4-16 February 2001: to examine the treatment of persons detained in prisons and other places of detention in England and Wales
17-21 February 2002: to examine the treatment of suspected terrorists in Belmarsh and Highdown prisons and other places of detention in England
12-23 May 2003: to examine the treatment of persons detained in prisons and other places of detention in England, Scotland and the Isle of Man
14-19 March 2004: to examine the treatment of suspected terrorists in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons and other places of detention in England
11-15 July 2005: to examine the treatment of suspected terrorists in Belmarsh prison and other places of detention in England, and to monitor the treatment and conditions of detention of a person convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), who is serving his sentence in the United Kingdom
20-25 November 2005: to examine the treatment of persons held under the Immigration Act 1971 in Full Sutton and Long Lartin prisons and other places of detention in England
The Committee is mandated to examine, by means of visits, the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
At the discretion of the Chief Inspector, and with the permission of the institution to
be inspected, observers are occasionally allowed to attend inspections. These observers have included people from a wide range of domestic and international bodies with an interest in the treatment and conditions of prisoners.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) escapes have been made from and (b) deaths have occurred at each prison in the Metropolitan Police District area in each year since 2000. 
|Table 1: escapes from metropolitan police district area prisons|
|(1) Year to date.|
The above figures show escapes from establishments and exclude those under escort.
|Table 2: deaths in custody including self-inflicted, natural and other causes|
|(1) Year to date.|
1. The deaths shown here include all those arising from incidents in prisons. For example, a prisoner who attempted suicide in a prison but actually died later in hospital would be included. Similarly for any prisoners who had, say, an initial heart attack in prison.
2. Year to date figures include deaths in custody up to 21 November 2006.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|