|Previous Section||Home Page|
Column 854Driffield Town Centre: £6,000
Keighley Town Centre: £34,700
Scarborough Town Centre: £100,000
Sutton Fields Industrial Estate, Hull: £50,000
York City Centre: £50,000
Boroughbridge Town Centre: £7,000
Brigg Town Centre: £49,900
In this region each of the winners, as listed below, received the amount bid for.
Clitheroe Town Centre: £28,500
Neston Town Centre: £80,000
Carlisle City Centre: £60,000
Blackpool Town Centre: £50,000
Chester City Centre: £25,000
Hyde Town Centre: £21,000
Penrith Town Centre: £71,000
Rochdale Town Centre: £50,000
Wigan Town Centre: £80,000
Tameside Business Development Centre: £2,000
Bury Town Centre: £80,000
Lancaster City Centre: £58,500
Morecambe Seafront: £59,700
In this region all but one of the winners, as listed below, received the amount bid for. Team Valley, Gateshead bid for £100,000.
Whitley Bay Town Centre: £100,000
Team Valley Estate, Gateshead: £50,000
Gateshead Town Centre: £65,000
Chester-le-Street Town Centre: £80,000
Bishop Auckland Town Centre: £75,000
Skippers Lane Industrial Estate, Cleveland: £80,000
Mill Lane Primary School, Cleveland: £6,000
In Wales each of the winners, as listed below, received the amount bid for.
Colwyn Bay Town Centre: £100,000
Cwmbran Town Centre: £100,000
West Glamorgan Mobile CCTV System £4,400
Rhondda Fawr Road, Ystrad £1,750
Haverfordwest Town Centre £16,000
Mr. Maclean: The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. The possibility of further competitions in the future has not been ruled out, but it is too early to give a firm commitment.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful bids for closed circuit television challenge money were applications to extend or upgrade existing schemes; and what proportion of the funding this will represent. 
Mr. Maclean: There were a total of 65 bids to extend or upgrade existing systems, of which 15 were successful. Funding for those 15 bids amounted to £487,000, representing 9.7 per cent. of the total made available.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers are currently detained under Immigration Act powers in HMP Rochester; and when use of the second wing within HMP
Column 855Rochester to hold Immigration Act detainees is likely to begin; 
(2) how many asylum seekers are currently detained under Immigration Act powers; and if he will provide a breakdown of those detained, by length of detention and by location. 
Mr. Nicholas Baker: As at 29 March 1995, a total of 619 persons who had sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 171 had been in detention less than one month, 87 between one and two months, 171 between two and six months, and 190 had been in detention longer than six months.
Information on the location of these detained persons, as at 29 March 1995, is given in the table. The second wing of Her Majesty's prison, Rochester is due to become available to house Immigration Act detainees during May 1995.
Number of people detained on 29 March 1995 who had sought asylum, by location Prisons |Number --------------------------------------------------- Haslar RC |79 Rochester |54 Winson Green |42 Brixton |11 Manchester |10 Wandsworth |9 Greenock |8 Wolds RC |7 Bristol |6 Brinsford YOI and RC |5 Exeter |4 Hindley RC |4 Armley, Leeds |3 Belmarsh |3 Risley |3 Wormwood Scrubs |3 Birmingham |2 Norwich |2 Strangeways |2 Other |17 Other places of detention Campsfield House |147 Harmondsworth |86 Gatwick Detention Centre |35 Stansted |13 Gatwick Beehive |11 Queens Building |8 Dover Harbour Board |6 Newhaven |4 Birmingham Detention Suite |2 Manchester Airport Detention Suite |1 Police Cells |32 Total |619
Column 856(2) what factors were taken into account in deter-mining Michael Grant's most recent securityclassification; 
(3) what was the classification awarded to Michael Grant following his conviction; and when, and under what procedure, the original classification was lowered. 
Mr. Michael Forsyth [holding answer 30 March 1995]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 31 March 1995:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the security classification of Michael Grant and the decision to transfer him to Ford open prison.
Michael Grant was held as a provisional category A prisoner when he was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court on 24 October 1988 of attempted murder. His case was considered by the Category A Committee at its meeting on 16 March 1989, and on 24 April 1989 the then Director General approved the recommendation that he should be confirmed in category A.
Michael Grant's security category was next reviewed during the following year. The case was considered by the Category A Committee and the Director General. On 5 June 1990 it was decided that Mr. Grant's security category should be reduced to category B.
On 28 January 1991 Mr. Grant was transferred from Gartree to Coldingley which was a category B training prison at the time. On 17 December 1992 the head of custody at Coldingley approved Mr. Grant's re-categorisation to category C. Mr. Grant had demonstrated his suitability through completing a number of escorted home visits. He was made a category C prisoner on 1 January 1993.
Mr. Grant was recommended for re-assessment of his security category at Coldingley prison on 30 May 1993.On 16 June 1993 Mr. Grant was the subject of a re-assessment board for reclassifying him from category C to category D, that is, the lowest security category. This is for prisoners who can reasonably be trusted to serve their sentences in open conditions. The Governor approved the Board's recommendation to reclassify Mr. Grant to category D on 21 June 1993.
The factors that were taken into consideration by the Board were good behaviour whilst in prison, completion of a successful period of home leave and a successful period of temporary release to attend his father's funeral. He had a sound prison employment record, and probation reports demonstrated that he had the backing of a supportive family. Although his earliest date of release was not until November 1997, the Board considered that he was a prisoner who could be reasonably trusted to serve the rest of his sentence in open conditions.
Mr. Grant was initially held as a category D prisoner at Coldingley. He was later accepted by Ford, who took into account his history of good behaviour in prison and the fact that he had successfully completed several periods of home leave. He was transferred to Ford on 23 May 1994.
Following Mr. Grant's recent failure to return from temporary release on time, he later returned voluntarily and will be recategorised to C and is now held in a segregation unit at Ford.
Mr. Maclean [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Some 11 persons convicted of murder and released on licence since the abolition of the death penalty in 1965 have been subsequently convicted of murder in England and Wales and a further four subsequently convicted of manslaughter.
Column 857In another case, one person committed suicide before being tried for the second homicide offence.
A further person was subsequently convicted of murder in Scotland and another in Northern Ireland.
In addition, three persons convicted of manslaughter for which they received a life sentence and released on licence since 1965 have been convicted of a subsequent murder in England and Wales.
Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sponsors, required to be interviewed following entry clearance applications, whose papers were referred initially to Leeds-Bradford airport, (a) have been interviewed and (b) are to be interviewed at other ports; and if he will list the numbers of sponsors (i)
interviewed and (ii) to be interviewed, at each port since January. 
|Interview |Awaiting an Port |completed |interview -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hull |14 |4 Stockton |4 |7 North Shields/Newcastle Airport |4 |11 Total |22 |22
Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sponsors are, at the latest date, awaiting interview at Leeds- Bradford airport; and if he will appoint additional immigration staff at Leeds-Bradford airport. 
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Some 124 sponsors are awaiting interview at Leeds-Bradford airport. As a matter of routine, the immigration service is currently reviewing the work loads and staffing at a number of ports, including Leeds-Bradford.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or his predecessors, since 1965. 
Mr. Howard: Statutory references to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons are contained in the House of Commons Disqualification act 1975, the Representation of the People Act 1981, schedule 7 to the
Column 858British Nationality Act 1981, the Representation of the People Act 1983 and section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
An analysis of other legislation introduced by this Department since 1965 for any reference of the type requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost since information is not held centrally.
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the donkey that escaped from Thorn Cross, Warrington young offender institution has been recaptured; how many personnel were involved in the search; what has been the cost of the search; and if he will make a statement. 
Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 March 1995:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about a donkey that went missing from the grounds of Thorn Cross Young Offender Institution.
On the morning of 13 March staff discovered that one of two donkeys held in a paddock near Thorn Cross was missing. Four members of staff spent approximately 30 minutes searching in and near the institution for the donkey but failed to find it.
The local police were informed as a precaution against the stray donkey becoming a hazard on the nearby motorway.
A short while later the police notified Thorn Cross that the donkey had been put into a field, earlier that morning, about one mile away from the prison by a passing motorist. The donkey was subsequently collected and returned to the paddock.
This incident involved five prison staff at an approximate cost of £75 plus the services of the local police.
The two donkeys are cared for by inmates on behalf of Sidmouth Donkey Sanctuary and are visited by local handicapped children and other school children.
Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per prisoner place, as measured by the Prison Service's net current expenditure divided by the total number of prison places for each of the past 12 months in England and Wales. 
Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond , dated 31 March 1995:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average cost per prisoner place for each of the past 12 months.
Cost per place is calculated on an annual basis. Variations in the pattern of expenditure mean that monthly expenditure is not a meaningful indicator.
This information is published annually on a financial year basis once the Prison Service Audited Appropriation figures are available. The most recently available cost per place figures are those published in the Prison Service Annual Report for 1993 94.
Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending the definition of blackmail to include the application of pressure to disclose publicly personal sexuality. 
Mr. Maclean: I do not think it would be appropriate to amend the offence of blackmail in this way. Removing the requirement for there to be material gain or loss would widen the scope of the offence unacceptably, encompassing types of behaviour unsuitable for regulation by the criminal law.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted suicides took place in each prison in (a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available; and how many of those attempts resulted in death. 
Mr. Michael Forsyth [holding answer 28 March 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 31 March 1995:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about attempted suicides and attempted suicides which resulted in deaths.
The information is set out in the table below:
Year |1979 |1984-85<1>|1989-90<2>|1991-92 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Self-harm with suicidal intent |300 |402 |398 |805
I regret that detailed records on self-harm are not available centrally for individual establishments and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
It is difficult to distinguish between self-harm incidents with or without suicidal intent. For this reason, prisons have not been asked to make this classification since 1992 and the figures above should be treated with caution.