1-20 of 2,518 results for subject:Licensing
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.292 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.009 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Licensing
- We searched for
- subject_t:Licensing OR subject_t:Licences OR subject_ses:91838
Session
X
2006-07
Type
-
Early day motions (4)
+
Legislation (97)
+
Bills (2)
+
Public bills (2)
-
Government bills (1)
+
Private members' bills (1)
-
Private members' bills (HL) (1)
+
Delegated legislation (95)
+
Statutory instruments (95)
-
Regulatory reform orders (2)
+
Members' contributions (2,038)
-
Business questions (1)
-
Oral answers to questions (43)
-
Oral questions (50)
-
Proceeding contributions (1,945)
+
Parliamentary committees (41)
+
Committee proceedings (30)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (2)
-
Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings (8)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (5)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (13)
-
Select Committee reports (6)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (1)
-
Select Committee written evidence (5)
+
Parliamentary papers (37)
-
Command papers (5)
-
House of Commons papers (26)
-
House of Lords papers (1)
-
Unprinted papers (5)
-
White papers (1)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (84)
+
Debates (62)
-
Adjournment debates (6)
+
Committee proceedings (30)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (2)
-
Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings (8)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (5)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (13)
+
Legislative debates (41)
-
Debates on bills (20)
-
Debates on delegated legislation (19)
-
Opposition days (1)
+
Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (1)
-
Paper petitions (1)
+
Statements (20)
+
Oral statements (2)
-
Ministerial statements (2)
-
Written statements (18)
+
Parliamentary questions (319)
-
Business questions (1)
-
Oral questions (50)
-
Written questions (268)
+
Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (1)
-
Paper petitions (1)
House
Session
More
2006-07 (2,518)
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether information on (a) applications and (b) consents for premises selling alcohol or regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003 is (i) required or (ii) at the seller's discretion for inclusion in home information packs.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether information on (a) applications and (b) consents for premises selling alcohol or regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003 is (i) required or (ii) at the seller's discretion for inclusion in home information packs.
Asked by
Lord Pickles
(Conservative)
Answered by
Yvette Cooper
(Labour)
Answering body
Communities and Local Government
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
9 October 2007
For answer on
11 October 2007
Answered on
30 October 2007
This information may be included in the Home Information Pack at the seller's discretion.
Subjects
Licensing; Licensed premises; Home information packs
Date
30 October 2007
Reference
157399; 465 c1176W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006; and how many project licences were in force at the end of (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006 in respect of work...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006; and how many project licences were in force at the end of (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006 in respect of work...
Asked by
John Robertson
(Labour)
Answered by
Meg Hillier
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 October 2007
For answer on
29 October 2007
Answered on
30 October 2007
It has not proved possible to respond to my hon. Friend in the time available before Prorogation.
Subjects
Animal welfare; Animal experiments; Licensing; Scotland
Date
30 October 2007
Reference
161678; 465 c1252W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted under (i) section 172, (ii) section 172a and (iii) section 173 of the Licensing Act 1964 in each year since 1997; and how many landlords have had their licences revoked due to breach...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted under (i) section 172, (ii) section 172a and (iii) section 173 of the Licensing Act 1964 in each year since 1997; and how many landlords have had their licences revoked due to breach...
Asked by
Lord Foster of Bath
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Maria Eagle
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 October 2007
For answer on
25 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
The number of people proceeded against at magistrates court and found guilty at all courts under (i) section 172, (ii) section 172a and (iii) section 173 of the Licensing Act 1964 can be found in the following table.Court proceedings data for 2006 will be available in late November 2007.The Licensing Act 2003 repealed the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 Act when it came into effect on 24 November 2005.Statistical bulletins published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) on licences to sell alcohol include the number of licences revoked, but do not indicate why.More information can be found on the DCMS website.
| Number of people proceeded against at magistrates court and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Licensing Act 196 sections 172, 172A, and 173, in England and Wales for the years 1997 to 2005¹, ², ³, 4, | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statute | Offence description | Statute | Offence description | Statute | Offence description | |
| Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 Schedule (Sec 3) para 6. Licensing Act 1964 Sec 172 | Holder of permission not to allow drunkenness etc. Permitting drunkenness or riotous conduct on the premises or selling liquor to a drunken person | Licensing Act 1964 Sec 172A as added by Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 S.32 | Relevant person working in licensed premises to permit drunkenness or violent behaviour etc | Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 Schedule (Sec 3) para 7. Licensing Act 1964 Sec 173 | Procuring drink for drunken person. Person in licensed premises procuring intoxicating liquor for a drunken person or aiding a drunken person to obtain drink | |
| Proceeded against | Found guilty | Proceeded against | Found guilty | Proceeded against | Found guilty | |
| 1997 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| 1998 | 22 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| 1999 | 13 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| 2000 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2002 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2003 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2004 | 13 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 The Licensing Act 2003 repealed the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 Act when it came into effect. | ||||||
| 4 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data 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. | ||||||
| Source: | ||||||
| Court proceedings database held by RDS—OCJR, Ministry of Justice |
Subjects
Licensing; Drunkenness; Prosecutions
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
465 c805-6W; 161376
House
House of Commons
(2) if she will amend the licences currently in operation allowing use of animals to test for skin irritancy to ensure that the EPISKIN-SIT test is used instead.
(2) if she will amend the licences currently in operation allowing use of animals to test for skin irritancy to ensure that the EPISKIN-SIT test is used instead.
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Meg Hillier
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 October 2007
For answer on
24 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
We will replace the test used to assess the potential of chemical substances to cause irritation to human skin with the non-animal EPISKIN-SIT test (or any other suitable and validated non-animal model) where scientifically justified and amend existing licences, as necessary, once the agreed protocols for regulatory testing are agreed and published.The determination for regulatory purposes of a material's potential to cause skin irritation is currently largely done by animal testing. On 27 April 2007 the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives Methods (ECVAM) Scientific Advisory Committee issued a validation statement with respect to two non-animal tests methods, EPISKIN and EpiDerm, for predicting skin irritation potential. The validation statement described the EPISKIN system as being a reliable and relevant stand-alone alternative method for this purpose, and the EpiDerm system as having the potential to reliably identify skin irritants within a tiered-testing strategy. Work is now under way within ECVAM to develop internationally agreed protocols for the use of these methods for regulatory purposes.We have already advised the relevant project licence holders of the validation statement, and the need to use the in vitro methods once the agreed protocols for regulatory testing become available. Thereafter, it will be possible for the Home Office to authorise the use of the animal test only in cases where it can be demonstrated that the in vitro methods would not produce scientifically satisfactory results.
Subjects
Animal experiments; Licensing
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
160971; 465 c913W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if she will replace the test used to assess the potential of chemical substances to cause irritation to human skin with the non-animal EPISKIN-SIT test;
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if she will replace the test used to assess the potential of chemical substances to cause irritation to human skin with the non-animal EPISKIN-SIT test;
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Meg Hillier
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 October 2007
For answer on
24 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
We will replace the test used to assess the potential of chemical substances to cause irritation to human skin with the non-animal EPISKIN-SIT test (or any other suitable and validated non-animal model) where scientifically justified and amend existing licences, as necessary, once the agreed protocols for regulatory testing are agreed and published.The determination for regulatory purposes of a material's potential to cause skin irritation is currently largely done by animal testing. On 27 April 2007 the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives Methods (ECVAM) Scientific Advisory Committee issued a validation statement with respect to two non-animal tests methods, EPISKIN and EpiDerm, for predicting skin irritation potential. The validation statement described the EPISKIN system as being a reliable and relevant stand-alone alternative method for this purpose, and the EpiDerm system as having the potential to reliably identify skin irritants within a tiered-testing strategy. Work is now under way within ECVAM to develop internationally agreed protocols for the use of these methods for regulatory purposes.We have already advised the relevant project licence holders of the validation statement, and the need to use the in vitro methods once the agreed protocols for regulatory testing become available. Thereafter, it will be possible for the Home Office to authorise the use of the animal test only in cases where it can be demonstrated that the in vitro methods would not produce scientifically satisfactory results.
Subjects
Animal experiments; Licensing
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
160970; 465 c913W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which companies have applied for licences in Cardigan Bay in the 24th licensing round.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which companies have applied for licences in Cardigan Bay in the 24th licensing round.
Asked by
Mark Williams
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Malcolm Wicks
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 October 2007
For answer on
22 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
In order to ensure commercial interests are not prejudiced and so as not to undermine the competitive process we do not publish the names of applicants for particular blocks. The names of winning applicants are made public at the time of any award
Subjects
Licensing; Exploration; Oil; Natural gas; Offshore industry; Cardigan Bay
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
160284; 465 c703W;465 c704W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what rules are in place on the staging of outside events; whether any amendments to these rules are being considered; and if she will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what rules are in place on the staging of outside events; whether any amendments to these rules are being considered; and if she will make a statement.
Asked by
Laurence Robertson
(Conservative)
Answered by
Gerry Sutcliffe
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
11 October 2007
For answer on
16 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
[holding answer 22 October 2007]: I have been asked to reply.Under the Licensing Act 2003 either a temporary event notice (TEN) or a premises licence is required if any licensable activities take place. A TEN will cover smaller events of less than 500 people at a cost of £21, while a premises licence is required for events with 500 or more people with the cost relating to the amount of people expected. However, if a local authority wishes to subsidise any specific community or charitable events it can do so using methods such as direct funding or internal charging.My Department published its Register of Local Authority Licensed Public Spaces in England and Wales on 15 January. The register lists those local authorities that have licensed their public spaces to enable a range of events to take place throughout the year. It will help event organisers and entertainers to determine whether licensable activities can take place in a particular location without the need to obtain a separate premises licence, or to give a temporary event notice.
Subjects
Licensing; Licensed premises
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
465 c651-2W; 158725
House
House of Commons
(2) what discussions she and officials from her Department had with representatives of the licensed taxi or licensed minicab sector before including Clause 26 in the draft Local Transport Bill; and if she will make a statement;
(2) what discussions she and officials from her Department had with representatives of the licensed taxi or licensed minicab sector before including Clause 26 in the draft Local Transport Bill; and if she will make a statement;
Asked by
Lee Scott
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 October 2007
For answer on
15 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
The decision to include clause 26 in the draft Local Transport Bill was prompted by a recommendation of the Bus Partnership Forum's Innovation and Inclusion Task and Finish Group. The recommendation that holders of private hire vehicle (PHV) licences should be allowed to obtain a special public service vehicle operator's licence to provide local bus services, in the same way as licensed taxis can do already, was seen as giving added flexibility to meet local transport needs, particularly in rural areas.In the knowledge that there would be full consultation on the draft Bill, clause 26 was not discussed specifically with the taxi and PHV trades before being included in the draft Bill. We have received a small number of representations—both for and against the proposal. Those against the proposal referred in particular to the particular circumstances of PHV operation in London. We are now considering all the responses as part of the post-consultation analysis process which will determine the final content of the Bill.We have made no estimate of the potential uptake of the proposal, but expect it to be relatively modest (in line with the use made of the existing power for taxis to provide local bus services). The proposal is simply intended to give PHV owners an added flexibility where they see an opportunity to use it. We would expect the provision to be of more value in rural areas where a smaller vehicle might be more cost-effective on a particular route.
Subjects
Licensing; Taxis
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
157991; 465 c879-80W
House
House of Commons
(3) how many responses to the consultation on the draft Local Transport Bill, referred to Clause 26 of the draft Bill; and how many of them (a) supported and (b) opposed the proposals in the clause.
(3) how many responses to the consultation on the draft Local Transport Bill, referred to Clause 26 of the draft Bill; and how many of them (a) supported and (b) opposed the proposals in the clause.
Asked by
Lee Scott
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 October 2007
For answer on
15 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
The decision to include clause 26 in the draft Local Transport Bill was prompted by a recommendation of the Bus Partnership Forum's Innovation and Inclusion Task and Finish Group. The recommendation that holders of private hire vehicle (PHV) licences should be allowed to obtain a special public service vehicle operator's licence to provide local bus services, in the same way as licensed taxis can do already, was seen as giving added flexibility to meet local transport needs, particularly in rural areas.In the knowledge that there would be full consultation on the draft Bill, clause 26 was not discussed specifically with the taxi and PHV trades before being included in the draft Bill. We have received a small number of representations—both for and against the proposal. Those against the proposal referred in particular to the particular circumstances of PHV operation in London. We are now considering all the responses as part of the post-consultation analysis process which will determine the final content of the Bill.We have made no estimate of the potential uptake of the proposal, but expect it to be relatively modest (in line with the use made of the existing power for taxis to provide local bus services). The proposal is simply intended to give PHV owners an added flexibility where they see an opportunity to use it. We would expect the provision to be of more value in rural areas where a smaller vehicle might be more cost-effective on a particular route.
Subjects
Licensing; Taxis
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
157992; 465 c879-80W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate she has made of the number of private hire vehicles that will apply for a special restricted PSV operator's licence if Clause 26 of the draft Local Transport Bill becomes law;
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate she has made of the number of private hire vehicles that will apply for a special restricted PSV operator's licence if Clause 26 of the draft Local Transport Bill becomes law;
Asked by
Lee Scott
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 October 2007
For answer on
15 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
The decision to include clause 26 in the draft Local Transport Bill was prompted by a recommendation of the Bus Partnership Forum's Innovation and Inclusion Task and Finish Group. The recommendation that holders of private hire vehicle (PHV) licences should be allowed to obtain a special public service vehicle operator's licence to provide local bus services, in the same way as licensed taxis can do already, was seen as giving added flexibility to meet local transport needs, particularly in rural areas.In the knowledge that there would be full consultation on the draft Bill, clause 26 was not discussed specifically with the taxi and PHV trades before being included in the draft Bill. We have received a small number of representations—both for and against the proposal. Those against the proposal referred in particular to the particular circumstances of PHV operation in London. We are now considering all the responses as part of the post-consultation analysis process which will determine the final content of the Bill.We have made no estimate of the potential uptake of the proposal, but expect it to be relatively modest (in line with the use made of the existing power for taxis to provide local bus services). The proposal is simply intended to give PHV owners an added flexibility where they see an opportunity to use it. We would expect the provision to be of more value in rural areas where a smaller vehicle might be more cost-effective on a particular route.
Subjects
Licensing; Taxis
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
157990; 465 c879-80W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what the reasons are for licence conditions requiring companies providing new electricity supplies to treat individuals in the same manner as businesses when determining the costs of providing a new supply; and what estimate he has made of...
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what the reasons are for licence conditions requiring companies providing new electricity supplies to treat individuals in the same manner as businesses when determining the costs of providing a new supply; and what estimate he has made of...
Asked by
Roger Williams
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Malcolm Wicks
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 October 2007
For answer on
24 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
Under section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, electricity distributors are required, upon request, to make a connection to supply electricity to a premises and to provide electric lines or electrical plant or both as necessary. Under section 19(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, the distributor may require any expenses reasonably incurred in providing such a connection (including lines and/or plant) to be defrayed by the person requiring the connection to such extent as is reasonable in all the circumstances.This legislation is supported by standard distribution licence conditions, including condition 4B (which requires distributors to publish and comply with a methodology for connection charges) and condition 4C (in particular paragraph 1 which requires that"““the licensee shall not discriminate between any persons or class or classes of persons ... in carrying out works for the purpose of connection””)."We have made no estimate of the cost of these provisions to individuals in rural Communities.
Subjects
Licensing; Regional electricity companies
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
160669; 465 c708W
House
House of Commons
(2) pursuant to the answer of 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 450W, on the Institute for Animal Health: waste disposal, if he will bring forward amendments to the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 to provide for the drainage systems of laboratories to be routinely inspected; and if he will...
(2) pursuant to the answer of 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 450W, on the Institute for Animal Health: waste disposal, if he will bring forward amendments to the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 to provide for the drainage systems of laboratories to be routinely inspected; and if he will...
Asked by
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jonathan Shaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 October 2007
For answer on
18 October 2007
Answered on
25 October 2007
The drainage systems of laboratories licensed by DEFRA to handle specified animal pathogens under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998 are not routinely inspected, nor is this a condition of a SAPO licence.However, following the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD), DEFRA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have issued a safety alert to all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. The alert relates to issues arising from the independent reviews carried out by Professor Spratt and the HSE into potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site. It requires all such laboratories to satisfy themselves that their facilities and procedures address all the issues identified by Professor Spratt and the HSE. DEFRA and the HSE will also undertake a programme of inspection at all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. SAPO licences for those laboratories have also been amended to make clear their responsibilities towards biosecurity.In addition, we have commissioned a review of the regulatory framework for animal pathogens under Sir Bill Callaghan. This review will include a consideration of the appropriate enforcement standards for animal pathogens, including issues such as drainage.
Subjects
Licensing; Laboratories
Date
25 October 2007
Reference
159593; 465 c527-8W
House
House of Commons
(3) on what dates Government research facilities handling animal pathogens for which his Department is responsible had their drainage systems (a) inspected and (b) risk assessed since 2001; and if he will make a statement.
(3) on what dates Government research facilities handling animal pathogens for which his Department is responsible had their drainage systems (a) inspected and (b) risk assessed since 2001; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jonathan Shaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 October 2007
For answer on
18 October 2007
Answered on
25 October 2007
The drainage systems of laboratories licensed by DEFRA to handle specified animal pathogens under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998 are not routinely inspected, nor is this a condition of a SAPO licence.However, following the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD), DEFRA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have issued a safety alert to all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. The alert relates to issues arising from the independent reviews carried out by Professor Spratt and the HSE into potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site. It requires all such laboratories to satisfy themselves that their facilities and procedures address all the issues identified by Professor Spratt and the HSE. DEFRA and the HSE will also undertake a programme of inspection at all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. SAPO licences for those laboratories have also been amended to make clear their responsibilities towards biosecurity.In addition, we have commissioned a review of the regulatory framework for animal pathogens under Sir Bill Callaghan. This review will include a consideration of the appropriate enforcement standards for animal pathogens, including issues such as drainage.
Subjects
Licensing; Laboratories
Date
25 October 2007
Reference
159596; 465 c527-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which laboratories have been licensed by his Department under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 with conditions that (a) require and (b) do not require routine inspections and risk assessments of drainage facilities;
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which laboratories have been licensed by his Department under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 with conditions that (a) require and (b) do not require routine inspections and risk assessments of drainage facilities;
Asked by
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jonathan Shaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 October 2007
For answer on
18 October 2007
Answered on
25 October 2007
The drainage systems of laboratories licensed by DEFRA to handle specified animal pathogens under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998 are not routinely inspected, nor is this a condition of a SAPO licence.However, following the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD), DEFRA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have issued a safety alert to all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. The alert relates to issues arising from the independent reviews carried out by Professor Spratt and the HSE into potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site. It requires all such laboratories to satisfy themselves that their facilities and procedures address all the issues identified by Professor Spratt and the HSE. DEFRA and the HSE will also undertake a programme of inspection at all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. SAPO licences for those laboratories have also been amended to make clear their responsibilities towards biosecurity.In addition, we have commissioned a review of the regulatory framework for animal pathogens under Sir Bill Callaghan. This review will include a consideration of the appropriate enforcement standards for animal pathogens, including issues such as drainage.
Subjects
Licensing; Laboratories
Date
25 October 2007
Reference
159590; 465 c527-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills when Government research facilities handling animal pathogens for which his Department is responsible have had their drainage systems (a) inspected and (b) risk assessed since 2001; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills when Government research facilities handling animal pathogens for which his Department is responsible have had their drainage systems (a) inspected and (b) risk assessed since 2001; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jonathan Shaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 October 2007
For answer on
18 October 2007
Answered on
25 October 2007
I have been asked to reply.The drainage systems of laboratories licensed by DEFRA to handle specified animal pathogens under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998 are not routinely inspected, nor is this a condition of a SAPO licence.However, following the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD), DEFRA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have issued a safety alert to all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. The alert relates to issues arising from the independent reviews carried out by Professor Spratt and the HSE into potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site. It requires all such laboratories to satisfy themselves that their facilities and procedures address all the issues identified by Professor Spratt and the HSE. DEFRA and the HSE will also undertake a programme of inspection at all SAPO Category 3 and 4 laboratories. SAPO licences for those laboratories have also been amended to make clear their responsibilities towards biosecurity.In addition, we have commissioned a review of the regulatory framework for animal pathogens under Sir Bill Callaghan. This review will include a consideration of the appropriate enforcement standards for animal pathogens, including issues such as drainage.
Subjects
Licensing; Laboratories
Date
25 October 2007
Reference
159533; 465 c459W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment she has made of whether the threshold of moderate pain in animal experimentation is being adhered to;
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment she has made of whether the threshold of moderate pain in animal experimentation is being adhered to;
Asked by
Andrew Rosindell
(Conservative)
Answered by
Meg Hillier
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 October 2007
For answer on
17 October 2007
Answered on
24 October 2007
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 makes provision for the protection of animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes which may have the effect of causing pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.Projects licensed under the 1986 Act specify ““protocols”” which are the means by which the project will be carried out. Each protocol is assigned a severity limit in one of four categories, 'unclassified', 'mild', 'moderate' or ““substantial””. The severity limit for each protocol is determined by the upper limit of the expected adverse effects that may be encountered by a protected animal, taking into account the measures specified in the licence for avoiding and controlling adverse effects. It represents the worst potential outcome for any animal subjected to the protocol, even if it may only be experienced by a small number of the animals to be used.A detailed description of each category of severity limit is set out in paragraph 5.42 of the published Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC 321). In general terms, the ““moderate”” category is reserved for protocols in which suffering is effectively controlled or terminated before the animal shows more severe effects. In the case of animals experiencing pain in such protocols, effective analgesia is provided or the protocol is terminated before the animals show more severe effects.Under standard project licence condition eight, set out in Appendix D to the Home Office Guidance, it is the responsibility of the project licence holder to ensure adherence to the severity limits and if these constraints appear to have been, or are likely to be, breached, the project licence holder must ensure that the Secretary of State is notified as soon as possible. Veterinary surgeons and animal care staff skilled in the recognition of the severity of signs of suffering or distress in animals are available at each establishment to advise the licensees on when an animal is experiencing or liable to experience more than moderate pain.The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate also visit designated establishments where animal experiments are being carried out to determine whether the conditions of licences are being complied with. Inspectors report to the Secretary of State any case in which any provision of the 1986 Act or any condition of a licence or certificate under the 1986 Act has not been or is not being complied with and advise on the action to be taken in any such case. Home Office records show that non-compliance with severity limits is rare.
Subjects
Animal experiments; Licensing
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
159240; 465 c337-9W
House
House of Commons
(2) how the Government defines moderate pain in relation to animal experimentation.
(2) how the Government defines moderate pain in relation to animal experimentation.
Asked by
Andrew Rosindell
(Conservative)
Answered by
Meg Hillier
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 October 2007
For answer on
17 October 2007
Answered on
24 October 2007
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 makes provision for the protection of animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes which may have the effect of causing pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.Projects licensed under the 1986 Act specify ““protocols”” which are the means by which the project will be carried out. Each protocol is assigned a severity limit in one of four categories, 'unclassified', 'mild', 'moderate' or ““substantial””. The severity limit for each protocol is determined by the upper limit of the expected adverse effects that may be encountered by a protected animal, taking into account the measures specified in the licence for avoiding and controlling adverse effects. It represents the worst potential outcome for any animal subjected to the protocol, even if it may only be experienced by a small number of the animals to be used.A detailed description of each category of severity limit is set out in paragraph 5.42 of the published Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HC 321). In general terms, the ““moderate”” category is reserved for protocols in which suffering is effectively controlled or terminated before the animal shows more severe effects. In the case of animals experiencing pain in such protocols, effective analgesia is provided or the protocol is terminated before the animals show more severe effects.Under standard project licence condition eight, set out in Appendix D to the Home Office Guidance, it is the responsibility of the project licence holder to ensure adherence to the severity limits and if these constraints appear to have been, or are likely to be, breached, the project licence holder must ensure that the Secretary of State is notified as soon as possible. Veterinary surgeons and animal care staff skilled in the recognition of the severity of signs of suffering or distress in animals are available at each establishment to advise the licensees on when an animal is experiencing or liable to experience more than moderate pain.The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate also visit designated establishments where animal experiments are being carried out to determine whether the conditions of licences are being complied with. Inspectors report to the Secretary of State any case in which any provision of the 1986 Act or any condition of a licence or certificate under the 1986 Act has not been or is not being complied with and advise on the action to be taken in any such case. Home Office records show that non-compliance with severity limits is rare.
Subjects
Animal experiments; Licensing
Date
24 October 2007
Reference
159246; 465 c337-9W
House
House of Commons
I thank the Minister for his reply. It was encouraging, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the sporting industry in Northern Ireland, particularly about regulation by the Security Industry Authority. Voluntary bodies believe that even their gatemen, just collecting a few pence at a country match, will be required to be trained and licensed at considerable expense. I am glad that the Minister has given his assurance. Will he write to me to indicate that voluntary sporting bodies, playing at their own grounds or perhaps on away games, will not require licences under the 2006 Act?
I thank the Minister for his reply. It was encouraging, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the sporting industry in Northern Ireland, particularly about regulation by the Security Industry Authority. Voluntary bodies believe that even their gatemen, just collecting a few pence at a country match, will be required to be trained and licensed at considerable expense. I am glad that the Minister has given his assurance. Will he write to me to indicate that voluntary sporting bodies, playing at their own grounds or perhaps on away games, will not require licences under the 2006 Act?
Asked by
Eddie McGrady
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
Answering body
Northern Ireland Grand Committee
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
23 October 2007
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that and to write to him to set out in more detail the arrangements that will be in place. He might also be reassured to know that I have recently had a meeting with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. I explained that my approach to the regulation of the security industry in relation to sport was to have a light touch and regulate only where absolutely necessary.
For example, if a sports club had a licensed premises at its grounds and a doorman at that establishment was employed not by the sports body but by a separate security company, that individual would need to be regulated and licensed. People who operated on the gate, sold programmes or were involved in general safety stewarding would not be caught. If we proceed in that way, we will get the right balance between regulation and ensuring that we do not impose unnecessary burdens on voluntary organisations.
Subjects
Clubs; Licensing; Northern Ireland; Voluntary organisations; Sports; Security guards
Date
23 October 2007
Reference
NIGC c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons Grand Committees
House
House of Commons
Before I answer, I welcome you to the Chair, Dr. McCrea. It is good to see you there; at least I know that I am not going to get an Exocet question from you.
Unpaid volunteers will not fall under the remit of the Security Industry Authority. The impact on voluntary sports clubs should therefore be minimal.
Before I answer, I welcome you to the Chair, Dr. McCrea. It is good to see you there; at least I know that I am not going to get an Exocet question from you.
Unpaid volunteers will not fall under the remit of the Security Industry Authority. The impact on voluntary sports clubs should therefore be minimal.
Answered by
Paul Goggins
(Labour)
Asked by
Eddie McGrady
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
Answering body
Northern Ireland Grand Committee
Type
Oral answers to questions
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment he has made of the effect of the implementation of the Security Industry Act 2006 on voluntary sports clubs.
Subjects
Clubs; Licensing; Northern Ireland; Voluntary organisations; Sports; Security guards
Date
23 October 2007
Reference
NIGC c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons Grand Committees
House
House of Commons
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that and to write to him to set out in more detail the arrangements that will be in place. He might also be reassured to know that I have recently had a meeting with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. I explained that my approach to the regulation of the security industry in relation to sport was to have a light touch and regulate only where absolutely necessary.
For example, if a sports club had a licensed premises at its grounds and a doorman at that establishment was employed not by the sports body but by a separate security company, that individual would need to be regulated and licensed. People who operated on the gate, sold programmes or were involved in general safety stewarding would not be caught. If we proceed in that way, we will get the right balance between regulation and ensuring that we do not impose unnecessary burdens on voluntary organisations.
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that and to write to him to set out in more detail the arrangements that will be in place. He might also be reassured to know that I have recently had a meeting with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. I explained that my approach to the regulation of the security industry in relation to sport was to have a light touch and regulate only where absolutely necessary.
For example, if a sports club had a licensed premises at its grounds and a doorman at that establishment was employed not by the sports body but by a separate security company, that individual would need to be regulated and licensed. People who operated on the gate, sold programmes or were involved in general safety stewarding would not be caught. If we proceed in that way, we will get the right balance between regulation and ensuring that we do not impose unnecessary burdens on voluntary organisations.
Answered by
Paul Goggins
(Labour)
Asked by
Eddie McGrady
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
Answering body
Northern Ireland Grand Committee
Type
Oral answers to questions
I thank the Minister for his reply. It was encouraging, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the sporting industry in Northern Ireland, particularly about regulation by the Security Industry Authority. Voluntary bodies believe that even their gatemen, just collecting a few pence at a country match, will be required to be trained and licensed at considerable expense. I am glad that the Minister has given his assurance. Will he write to me to indicate that voluntary sporting bodies, playing at their own grounds or perhaps on away games, will not require licences under the 2006 Act?
Subjects
Clubs; Licensing; Northern Ireland; Voluntary organisations; Sports; Security guards
Date
23 October 2007
Reference
NIGC c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons Grand Committees
House
House of Commons