Lords Hansard text for 6 Feb 200706 Feb 2007 (pt 0001)

Written Answers

Tuesday 6 February 2007

Children: Care

The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many children in England, Scotland and Wales are currently in local authority care as a result of their parent or other principal carer being labelled as a sufferer of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or of fabricated or induced illness by carers syndrome. [HL1634]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): This information is not held centrally by the department.

Children: EU Accession Countries

Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many children are estimated to have entered England and Wales from those countries that joined the European Union in 2004, broken down by local authority area. [HL1310]

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord’s Question was transferred to the Treasury on 30 January. The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

Civil Service: Retirement Age

Lord Ouseley asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the rationale for senior civil servants' retirement age being set at 65, while for most staff below those grades there is no default retirement age. [HL1571]

Lord Davies of Oldham: Unlike retirement age policies for staff below the senior Civil Service, retirement age for the members of the senior Civil Service (SCS) is not delegated to individual departments to decide but is managed centrally.

Careful consideration was given to the impact on SCS management policies in light of the age regulations before the decision to adopt the national default age of 65 was taken. Departments and agencies and the Council of Civil Service Unions were consulted.

It is important for the Civil Service to have the flexibility to manage talent in the SCS through, for example, promotion, deployment and recruitment. The

6 Feb 2007 : Column WA116

decision to adopt a retirement age of 65 for the SCS enables the Civil Service to manage the SCS so that it has the right skills, experience and behaviours to meet the challenges faced by the 21st century Civil Service in delivering the Government's agenda. Having a retirement age of 65 does not mean that members of the SCS cannot request to work beyond that age.

Crossrail

Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:

When the promoters of the Crossrail Bill will submit a draft option agreement to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) in respect of its proposed services on the great western and great eastern main lines; and whether the promoters' timetable for the passage of the Crossrail Bill through the House of Lords will allow for the ORR to have made a decision on the option agreement before the Bill is deposited there. [HL1790]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Crossrail access option is being negotiated with Network Rail with the aim of submitting it to the ORR for approval within a few weeks. The intention continues to be that the ORR’s decision will be in time to inform affected petitioners for their appearances before the House of Lords Select Committee. Whether the decision can be at an earlier stage of the Bill depends on the time the ORR needs and progress with the Bill in the House of Commons.

Dangerous Dogs

Lord Bradley asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many people have been prosecuted under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 in England and Wales for each year since 1992; and [HL1625]

How many people have been prosecuted in England and Wales under Sections 1(2)(a), 1(2)(d), 1(2)(e) and 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for each year since 1992. [HL1626]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts for the requested offences are shown in the attached table.

Figures for 2006 will be available in the autumn.

Information for Scotland is a matter for the Scotland Office and that for Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland Office.

6 Feb 2007 : Column WA117

6 Feb 2007 : Column WA118

The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates’ court for offences relating to the Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1871 Section 2 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sections 1(2)(a), 1(2)(d), 1(2)(e) and 1(3) in England and Wales 1992-2005 ^{(1) (2) (3)}
Statute	Offence description	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Dogs Act 1871 Sec. 2.	Failure to comply with an order to keep a dog under proper control etc. Dangerous dog not kept under proper control.	889	609	551	510	513	492	454
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(a).	Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.	31	9	1	1	5	1	5
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(d).	Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.	187	74	24	20	12	12	7
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(e).	Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.	27	12	8	3	2	3	-
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(3).	Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.	209	167	57	35	18	15	23
Total		1,343	871	641	569	550	523	489

Statute	Offence description	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Dogs Act 1871 Sec. 2.	Failure to comply with an order to keep a dog under proper control etc. Dangerous dog not kept under proper control.	401	462	374	336	335	352	306
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(a).	Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.	1	2	1	6	4	15	3
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(d).	Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.	11	9	4	3	2	2	3
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(2)(e).	Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.	2	-	-	1	-	-	1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec. 1(3).	Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.	12	5	4	6	1	5	11
Total		427	478	383	352	342	374	324
- NIL
⁽¹⁾ These data are on the 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 courts and police forces. 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.
⁽³⁾ Staffordshire police force was able to submit sample data only for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.
Our ref: PQ HL1625 and HL1626Source: RDS Office for Criminal Justice Reform

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page