View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

3 Oral Answers
26 OCTOBER 2009
Oral Answers
4
we legislate appropriately for greater transparency in
this area, how does she envisage implementing the
Government’s promise?
Meg Hillier: I refer to my earlier point. It is a simple
maths lesson, in a sense. If more science is proposed,
more experiments are likely to come before the animals
scientific procedures division to see whether it is acceptable
to carry out those experiments. At all times the Home
Office inspectorate looks very carefully at the suggestions
put forward, ensuring that only experiments that can be
done only on animals are agreed. If not, alternatives
have to be used. We have also invested an awful lot of
money in the National Centre for the Replacement,
Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—
NC3Rs—to reduce the use of animals in experiments,
but more science in the global context is something that
we should welcome, even if it sometimes leads to perverse
outcomes, as in this case.
Tasers
2. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): What his policy is on
the use of Taser guns by police forces; and if he will
make a statement. [295126]
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism
(Mr. David Hanson): We are committed to providing the
police with the equipment necessary to protect the
public and to do their job safely. The police use of Taser
in England and Wales has shown that it provides an
effective option for police when dealing with violent or
threatening situations.
Norman Baker: The Minister will be aware that Tasers
have been implicated in the deaths of more than 300 people
in the United States, and that their use varies enormously
in the UK with, for example, Tasers having been used
224 times last year in West Yorkshire, as opposed to
345 uses in South Yorkshire. Does he agree that it is
important to introduce more sensible controls, and will
he limit the use of Tasers to authorised firearms officers
and exclude their use against children, 18 of whom were
zapped in the UK last year?
Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that
Tasers have been used 4,818 times up to March 2009,
and in none of those instances were serious injuries or
deaths reported; nor was there evidence of public difficulty
with Taser use. I understand that there may well have
been reports of difficulties elsewhere, but that is not the
experience in the United Kingdom. That is because we
have issued proper and effective guidance to police
forces, which allows strong regulation of the use of
Tasers. I believe that goes far enough.
With reference to those aged under 18, there have
been only 21 occasions when Tasers have been used on
under-18s, and in all those cases, no incidents of injury
have occurred.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): Tasers
are effective at incapacitating potentially violent individuals
at a distance, but the vice-president, training, for Taser,
Mr. Rick Gilbault, has recently advised that a Taser
should not be aimed at the chest area when incapacitating
an individual. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that
those views will be reflected in any future guidance?
Mr. Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his
comments. We have clear guidance on the use of Tasers,
including an independent medical panel which moderates
on their use and gives guidance accordingly. I will
certainly draw colleagues’ attention to those views and
to my hon. Friend’s comments.
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): Is not the increasing
use of Tasers another example, along with the decision
to put armed police patrols on the streets of east
London, of the slippery slide towards US-style armed
policing in this country?
Mr. Hanson: Actually, no, because Tasers are used to
reduce violence and the risk of injury, and to support
officers in preventing violence against themselves or, on
some occasions, by the Tasered person, through either
self-harm or incidents that might lead to the harm of
others. As I have said, there were 4,818 incidents up to
March and not one single serious injury or death. We
need to have guidance, but it is proportionate and
designed to help to reduce serious violence.
Crime Reduction Grants
3. Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford)
(Con): What plans he has to extend the availability of
small business crime reduction grants; and if he will
make a statement. [295127]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): The £5 million
small retailers capital grants fund will help secure small
independent retail shops in areas that are at most risk of
crime. There are no plans to extend the scheme, but
other aspects of the retail crime action plan are helping
to tackle retail crime in every area.
Mr. Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware of the Federation
of Small Businesses survey that found that crime against
businesses costs small firms about £13,500 each? Although
I am sure that the businesses within the 50 priority areas
have taken up the opportunity with enthusiasm, I think
it curious that they bear a remarkable similarity to a list
of Labour local authorities. Why do not businesses in
areas such as my constituency in Essex have the same
opportunity to apply for help?
Mr. Campbell: The criteria for the scheme were
deprivation, crime rates and the proportion of the small
retailers that we were most interested in helping. The
criteria were agreed by the retail crime steering group,
and the FSB is not only an active member, but it agreed
with the criteria and the principle. I should point out
that Chingford, which is part of the seat of the hon.
Gentleman’s right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford
and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), is not a
Labour area.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): It is very important
that we support small businesses and prevent crime
against them, but we have to back that up with a
Forensic Science Service that can protect the public and
ensure that crimes are solved. Why is the Minister
overseeing a criminals charter through the closure of
the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Chorley,