|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Binley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent attacks on racecourse bookmakers travelling to and from racecourses have been recorded in the last 12 months. 
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average time his Department took to answer questions for (a) ordinary written
answer and (b) written answer on a named day in the last 12 months. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010, the Home Office took on average 10 days to respond to an ordinary written question and nine days to respond to a named day question. These figures do not take parliamentary recess into account.
With effect from the current Session of Parliament, each Department will provide the Procedure Committee with sessional statistics on the time taken to answer written questions. This implements recommendation 24 of the 3rd report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2008-09.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA records obtained by the police since 1997 have not been loaded on to the National DNA Database; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Alan Campbell [holding answer 25 January 2010]: Data on the number of DNA samples taken by the police were not collected centrally before April 2000. In the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2009, 4,986,306 DNA samples were taken from persons arrested by police forces in England and Wales. During this period, 4,544,962 DNA subject profiles were loaded onto the National DNA Database (NDNAD). Therefore, an estimated 441,344 subject DNA samples (9 per cent. of the total samples taken) were not loaded to the database during this period.
The figure of 441,344 relates to samples taken and not to individuals. A proportion of the samples will be replicate samples as some persons are arrested on more than one occasion and may be re-sampled. It should be noted that the figures for DNA samples taken and DNA profiles loaded onto the NDNAD are not directly comparable. The number of DNA profiles loaded onto the NDNAD includes profiles derived from volunteer samples, whereas volunteer samples are not included in the figures for DNA samples taken by the police. Profiles where the load date is unknown are not included in the profile loaded figure.
Subsequent checks of the Police National Computer (PNC) within the police force may show that the individual already has a DNA profile on the NDNAD, possibly taken by another police force. Therefore there is no need to send a duplicate sample to a forensic supplier for profiling and loading onto the NDNAD. These samples will be destroyed within the police force;
Some samples may be incomplete, damaged or contaminated so that it is not possible for a DNA profile to be derived and loaded onto the database and will be destroyed in the police force;
Some samples will be sent for profiling but not result in a DNA profile; and
Some samples will be sent for profiling but the DNA profile will fail to load onto the database if the related demographic data does not match with a corresponding arrest record on the PNC. These are investigated and may be loaded at a later date.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the number of names attached to records on the National DNA Database which (a) are mis-spelled and (b) have been attached in error; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Alan Campbell [holding answer 25 January 2010]: Data provided by the National DNA Database (NDNAD) Delivery unit indicates that between 1 January 2007 and 20 January 2010, it has made changes to eight names on NDNAD profile records following a request from the police force which took the sample. In addition, police forces on occasion may make spelling changes to names on the 'parent' record held on the Police National Computer (PNC). The PNC is linked to the NDNAD and following any changes to names on PNC, an automatic update would be forwarded to the NDNAD.
In the same period, there have been 330 sampling or administration errors that have led to records being loaded with incorrect demographic data-i.e. an error identified in up to approximately 0.019 per cent. of subject profiles in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009.
A number of procedures carried out by police forces, forensic suppliers and the NDNAD Delivery Unit are in place to ensure that information is recorded as accurately as possible on the NDNAD. These procedures are designed to ensure as far as possible that errors are not included on the database in the first place, rather than rectifying them once the profile has been loaded. If any irregular record comes to the notice of the NDNAD Delivery Unit, the record is suspended on the database pending an investigation-the outcome of which is that the profile record may be re-instated unchanged, amended or deleted.
There should be no risk of the wrong individual being charged with an offence since it is a Crown Prosecution Service requirement that, if a person is to be charged on the basis of a DNA match, there must be supporting non-DNA evidence available to be used in evidence. The DNA evidence is one piece of the information that the courts would require for a successful prosecution, as there might be an innocent explanation for someone's presence at a crime scene.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arrested for a trafficking offence were (a) cautioned, (b) convicted, (c) subsequently charged with a different crime, (d) subsequently charged and convicted of a different crime and (e) subsequently released without charge in each of the last 10 years. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: Three people have been cautioned for trafficking for sexual exploitation between 2004 and 2009. Of those, one person (cautioned in 2006) was subsequently convicted for driving while over the prescribed alcohol limit.
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deposit-taking institutions reported possible money laundering offences to the National Criminal Intelligence Service in each year since 2003; and what proportion of such reports were made by the 10 sources reporting the most such possible incidents in each such year. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The National Criminal Intelligence Service ceased to exist on 1 April 2006, when it became part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). SOCA does not hold full information on the number of suspicious activity reports (SARs) submitted by sector before that date.
248 (October 2006 to September 2007);
234 (October 2007 to September 2008); and
237 (October 2008 to September 2009).
66 per cent. (October 2006 to September 2007);
69 per cent. (October 2007 to September 2008); and
72 per cent. (October 2008 to September 2009).
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many sites and over how many hectares the illegal growing of opium poppies was discovered in each year since 1997; and in which regions such sites were located. 
Alan Johnson: No data are held as the cultivation of opium poppies is not an unlawful activity under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. An offence of production of a controlled drug is committed under the Act only if the opium is extracted from the opium poppy without such activity being authorised by Home Office licence for the purpose of producing opiate medicines.
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what proportion of appeals to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) against police investigations of complaints were upheld in each of the last three years; and how many such appeals resulted in a re-investigation (a) undertaken by the police, (b) supervised by the IPCC, (c) managed by the IPCC and (d) undertaken independently by the IPCC; 
(2) on how many occasions the Independent Police Complaints Commission has used its statutory powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to require a complaint case to be referred to it which did not fall to be referred to it on a mandatory basis by the police force or police authority concerned in each of the last three years; 
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a privacy impact assessment was undertaken in respect of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009 in relation to the proposal to extend the powers to local authorities. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: No privacy impact assessment was undertaken. Local authorities have had investigation powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 since April 2005 and have operated them successfully without criticism or comment. The order makes additional powers under the 2002 Act available to suitably trained and accredited financial investigators in local authorities, notably the power to seize and seek the forfeiture of cash which is suspected of being the proceeds of crime or intended for use in crime. Forfeiture is subject to an order in the magistrates court. The use of the cash seizure and forfeiture powers in the 2002 Act has not previously raised any privacy issues.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on establishing rape crisis centres in London since May 2008; and how many such centres have been opened. 
Alan Johnson: Funding for local sexual assault services including rape crisis centres is provided by the Ministry of Justice and Government Equalities Office not the Home Office. Details of the latest funding round can be found at:
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded incidents of robbery there were (a) in total and (b) per head in Milton Keynes in each of the last five years. 
|Selected offences recorded by Milton Keynes CDRP and rate per 1,000 population, 2004-05 to 2008-09|
|Offence code||Offence description||No. of offences||Rate per 1,000 population||No. of offences||Rate per 1,000 population||No. of offences||Rate per 1,000 population|
|Offence code||Offence description||No. of offences||Rate per 1,000 population||No. of offences||Rate per 1,000 population|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government plan to replace arrangements for the safety testing of shellfish with alternatives which do not require testing on animals. 
Meg Hillier: Yes. The Government are fully committed to replacing the current testing arrangements for biotoxins in shellfish with non-animal alternatives. The Home Office has been working on this matter with the Food Standards Agency which is responsible for the monitoring programme for algal toxins in shellfish harvesting areas.
For one group of toxins (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) toxins), a non-animal method of testing has already been introduced to test mussels and accounts for more than 90 per cent. of all shellfish samples tested for PSP. Subject to review by the FSA of validation data, the method will be extended to additional shellfish species later this year. Another non-animal testing method is also being developed for lipophilic toxins (including Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP)) with the intention of having a validated method for testing mussels available for use in the monitoring programme by June 2011.
The testing arrangements are required as part of the EU food hygiene requirements for shellfish harvesting areas. The legislation specifies the methods to be used in testing and for most toxins the biological (animal) methods are specified as the reference method.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|