|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Angela Eagle: I have today published the committee's annual report for 2000, and laid it before Parliament pursuant to section 20(5) of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I am pleased to note that the committee has continued to make progress on its extensive programme of work.
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the figures relating to scientific procedures performed on living animals in Great Britain in 2000, licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. 
66 per cent. were for fundamental biological research and applied human and veterinary medicine, and 17 per cent. for toxicological/safety testing (mostly for pharmaceutical evaluation purposes);
82 per cent. of the procedures involved use of rats, mice and other rodents, and fish and birds were used in 14 per cent. of the remainder;
dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, accorded special protection under the 1986 Act, were collectively used in less than 1 per cent. of the procedures;
the number of procedures involving the use of genetically modified animals, mostly mice, rose by 70,000 (14 per cent.) to 582,000 in 2000;
Angela Eagle: I am today announcing the publication of the latest research into central Government funding of voluntary and community organisations. It reveals that total Government funding for the year 19992000 was £2.2 billiona rise in real terms of 5.4 per cent. over the last two years. A copy of the report "Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 198283 to 19992000" has been placed in the Library.
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 342W
|Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food||346,400||368,265|
|Crown Prosecution Service||5,000||0|
|Department for Culture, Media and Sport||219,286,178||247,449,533|
|Ministry of Defence||15,638,725||15,099,220|
|Department for Education and Employment||96,055,271||167,393,594|
|Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions||950,353,834||1,042,711,540|
|Foreign and Commonwealth Office||7,707,459||9,645,839|
|Department of Health||59,992,313||60,273,422|
|Department for International Development||181,577,000||195,269,000|
|Lord Chancellor's Department||22,497,467||3,285,565|
|Department of Social Security||14,535,775||13,508,767|
|Department of Trade and Industry||17,328,000||16,106,000|
|Northern Ireland Executive||(1)||(1)|
|National Assembly for Wales||110,107,441||95,104,573|
(1) Not available
Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will confirm the final 200102 key performance indicator targets for average cost per uncrowded prison place and average cost per prisoner. 
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further right of appeal on human rights grounds is available to those who had appeals pending before the Immigration Appeals Authority, or where an in time appeal could have been made, on 2 October 2000. 
Mr. Blunkett: In another place, on 20 March 2001, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 153-54W my noble Friend, Lord Bassam, in reply to a question from Lord Lester of Herne Hill, clarified the position of asylum seekers who wished to make a human rights claim under
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 343W
section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He confirmed that people appealing against immigration decisions made before 2 October 2000 cannot benefit from this appeal right which is not retrospective. But they could make a separate human rights claim and would have the opportunity to appeal except in those instances where the human rights issue had already been considered by the appellate authority or the courts, or there had been findings of fact at an earlier appeal which mean the human rights claim is bound to fail.
However, it has been decided that the exception should not apply to people who had an appeal pending or could have lodged appeals in time to the immigration appeals authority on 2 October 2000. If they make a human rights claim and it is rejected they will be able to make an allegation and we will then give them an opportunity to appeal to the immigration appeals authority.
Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants have had their claims processed at Oakington detention centre since 20 March 2000; what was the outcome of each claim; how many of those refused asylum subsequently appealed; what were the outcomes of the appeals; how many appellants failed to attend the appeal hearing; how many were held in other detention centres pending determination on an appeal; and how many were removed from the United Kingdom. 
Angela Eagle [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The following information is based on provisional Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) data. Up to 30 June 2001, there have so far been 6,182 principal applicants who have had their asylum claim decided at Oakington.
|Refused but granted exceptional leave to enter or remain||13|
There have so far been 5,425 appeals lodged. Only appellants who are detained or whose claim was certified as manifestly unfounded on their merits are subject to fast-track appeal arrangements. Of those sent to the IAA, and so far determined, the outcome was as follows:
|Outcome of appeals||Number|
|Withdrawn or abandoned||489|
Information on the number of appellants who failed to attend the appeal hearing is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 884 appellants have been detained pending the determination
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 344W
Mr. Denham: Those reports are the property of Sussex Police Authority and the Chief Constable. I met my hon. Friend and members of the Ashley family on 4 July. At the meeting I said that we would use our best endeavours to encourage the Police Authority to publish as much as possible, bearing in mind that the report contains confidential information that will need to be subject to considered legal advice, and the need to ensure there is no adverse impact on other proceedings.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|