Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

348326

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of offences under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England between 1 January 2014 and 12 May 2014.
	tabling member constituency	Penistone and Stocksbridge
	tabling member printed	Angela Smith
	uin	1009
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 1010 1012 1013 1014 question first answered 09/06/2015 12:16:55 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	1564 label Biography information for Angela Smith

348327

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of offences under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England in a (i) public and (ii) private place between 13 May 2014 and 31 December 2014.
	tabling member constituency	Penistone and Stocksbridge
	tabling member printed	Angela Smith
	uin	1010
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 1009 1012 1013 1014 question first answered 09/06/2015 12:16:55 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	1564 label Biography information for Angela Smith

348278

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Wetlands
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many wetland sites there are in the UK; what area those sites cover; what statutory protections have applied to each such site in each year since 2005; and if she will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Bridgend
	tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
	uin	1011
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Defra has sent two representatives to the 12<sup>th</sup> Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention in Uruguay.</p><p>The UK is a party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and has designated 172 Ramsar sites. This is more than any other Contracting Party and includes 24 sites in the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. In Great Britain, Ramsar sites cover an area of almost 700,000 hectares. Detailed site information is available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s website at: <a href="http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=161" target="_blank">http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=161</a>.</p><p>In Great Britain, Ramsar sites are not afforded statutory protection but as a matter of Government policy receive the same protection as European sites designated under the EU Wild Birds and Habitats Directives. For example, in England the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) states that listed or proposed Ramsar sites should be given the same protection as European sites. In regard to the broader protection of wetlands, this is mainly delivered through national implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and the Birds and Habitats Directives. Defra takes a strategic approach to ensure that the implementation of these Directives is complementary to deliver common objectives.</p><p>Information regarding Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Penrith and The Border answering member printed Rory Stewart grouped question UIN 961 question first answered 09/06/2015 09:00:37 answering member 4137 label Biography information for Rory Stewart
	tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

348328

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many (a) Community Protection Notices, (b) injunctions and (c) Criminal Behaviour Orders have been served for dog-related offences under the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 since 20 October 2014.
	tabling member constituency	Penistone and Stocksbridge
	tabling member printed	Angela Smith
	uin	1012
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 1009 1010 1013 1014 question first answered 09/06/2015 12:16:55 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	1564 label Biography information for Angela Smith

348329

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England for allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog between 13 May 2014 and 13 May 2015.
	tabling member constituency	Penistone and Stocksbridge
	tabling member printed	Angela Smith
	uin	1013
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 1009 1010 1012 1014 question first answered 09/06/2015 12:16:56 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	1564 label Biography information for Angela Smith

348330

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	Dangerous Dogs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people were (a) proceeded against and (b) convicted of an offence under section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1871 in England in 2014.
	tabling member constituency	Penistone and Stocksbridge
	tabling member printed	Angela Smith
	uin	1014
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under Section 3 and 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can be viewed in Table 1 and Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, in England in 2014, can be viewed in Table 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Criminal justice statistics for 2015 are planned for publication in spring 2016.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Centrally held data cannot separately identify whether or not an attack took place in a public or a private place. This information may be held in individual court files, which could only be inspected at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>With regard to the calendar split, no defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts on the enhanced offences until June 2014; hence data for May has been retained together and a split from June to December presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Meanwhile, data reported to the Ministry of Justice, and held on the Court Proceedings Database, pertaining to criminal cases which were concluded at all courts in England and Wales between 20 October 2014 and 31 December 2014 (latest currently available) indicate that none of the Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) issued were as a result of a conviction for a criminal offence specifically relating to dogs under the anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policy Act 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice holds no information centrally on Community Protection Notices or injunctions related to powers under this Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under selected sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Outcome</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>January </strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>May</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>June</strong></p><p><strong>To</strong></p><p><strong>December</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p>444</p><p> </p><p>325</p></td><td><p>718</p><p> </p><p>553</p></td><td><p>1,163</p><p> </p><p>878</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991</p></td><td><p>Proceeded</p><p>Against</p><p>Found</p><p>Guilty</p></td><td><p><strong>-</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong>-</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3</strong></p><p> </p><p>2</p></td><td><p>3</p><p> </p><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 1009 - 1010 &amp; 1013</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 2</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of offences under the Dogs Act 1871, England, 2014 <sup>(1)(2)</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Proceeded against</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Found guilty</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>59</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><p> </p><p>(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.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: 271-15 PQC 101</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 1009 1010 1012 1013 question first answered 09/06/2015 12:16:56 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
	tabling member	1564 label Biography information for Angela Smith

348267

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Abortion: Costs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of NHS abortion services from May 2010 to April 2015.
	tabling member constituency	North Antrim
	tabling member printed	Ian Paisley
	uin	1015
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Information about expenditure on termination of pregnancy services is not collected centrally.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 09/06/2015 11:56:55 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	4129 label Biography information for Ian Paisley

348331

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Rutherglen and Hamilton West
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many benefit recipients have been sanctioned in Rutherglen and Hamilton West constituency in the last 12 months.
	tabling member constituency	Rutherglen and Hamilton West
	tabling member printed	Margaret Ferrier
	uin	1016
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The information requested, broken down by geography and reason, is published at:</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/" target="_blank">https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk</a></p><p>Guidance on how to extract the information required can be found at:</p><p><a href="https://sw.stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/online-help/Getting-Started---SuperWEB2.html" target="_blank">https://sw.stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/online-help/Getting-Started---SuperWEB2.html</a></p> answering member constituency Witham answering member printed Priti Patel question first answered 09/06/2015 13:58:25 answering member 4066 label Biography information for Priti Patel
	tabling member	4386 label Biography information for Margaret Ferrier

348291

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department for International Development
	answering dept id	20
	answering dept short name	International Development
	answering dept sort name	International Development
	hansard heading	India: Overseas Aid
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what information she holds on whether any aid offered from the UK is being used to assist people suffering in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from extreme heat and drought.
	tabling member constituency	East Londonderry
	tabling member printed	Mr Gregory Campbell
	uin	1031
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Although we continue to monitor the situation, UK aid is not currently being used to assist people in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana following extreme heat and drought conditions in these states. No request for assistance has been made by the Indian Government.</p> answering member constituency New Forest West answering member printed Mr Desmond Swayne question first answered 09/06/2015 16:39:47 answering member 55 label Biography information for Sir Desmond Swayne
	tabling member	1409 label Biography information for Mr Gregory Campbell

348261

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Parliament: Asbestos
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Mole Valley representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent progress has been made on the operation of Parliament's Asbestos Management Plan; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Scunthorpe
	tabling member printed	Nic Dakin
	uin	1032
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Owing to its historic nature, asbestos deposits are present within the Palace of Westminster. The Parliamentary Estates Directorate operates an Asbestos Management Plan which it uses to safely manage asbestos across the whole of the parliamentary estate, in full compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.<br><br>During the successful installation of new, modern equipment in the plant room that supplies the Chamber and adjacent offices, a series of asbestos reassurance tests have been carried out. Traces of asbestos were recently found in the ventilation trunking, but extensive sampling at the vents has provided very high confidence that it is not becoming airborne.<br><br>Professor R J Willey, Managing Director of ACS Physical Risk Control Ltd has undertaken an urgent review of the evidence, and concluded: “It is my considered Opinion that, after the discovery, proper procedures were timeously followed. Detailed investigation of the results of air tests taken, over a considerable period following the discovery, show quite conclusively that there was negligible risk to any persons supplied with air from the duct system. Providing current conditions are maintained, there will be negligible risk to any persons supplied with air in the future from the duct system.”<br><br>The Commission and the House authorities regard the safety of Members, staff and the visiting public as their highest priority. Steps have therefore been taken to ensure that the ventilation system is not disturbed in any way. Steps will also be taken to eradicate the asbestos in the trunking by the end of 2015, but in the meantime we are content with this authoritative advice that there is no reason to stop using the Chamber, or the adjacent offices and spaces.</p> answering member constituency Mole Valley answering member printed Sir Paul Beresford question first answered 09/06/2015 12:44:37 answering member 103 label Biography information for Sir Paul Beresford
	tabling member	4056 label Biography information for Nic Dakin