27 Feb 1997 : Column: 287
Written Answers to Questions
Thursday 27 February 1997
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Courts (Induction Loop Systems)
Mr. Boateng: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts in England and Wales provide induction loop systems for people with hearing impairments; and what steps his Department has taken to raise awareness in the courts of the special needs of dual-sensory-impaired people. [17117]
Mr. Streeter: There are 40 courts in the Court Service with induction loop or infra-red systems for people with hearing impairments. Our records do not enable us to identify separately how any magistrates courts have induction loop systems, but we have provided grant funding to allow at least 50 courts to have induction loop or infra-red systems for people with hearing impairments.
Through various building guides and published standards, we have made staff, local authorities and magistrates courts committees aware of the features to be included in new buildings and, subject to building constraints and funding availability, in older buildings, to meet the requirements of disabled people. Training courses for all new managers in the Court Service include sessions on disability awareness and managers are expected to raise these issues among their staff. Each court has customer liaison officer who is available to help disabled court users. The Court Service is currently producing an action plan to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under section 22A(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, all magistrates court committees are required to have regard to the needs of court users who are disabled in discharging their responsibilities for the administration of the magistrates courts. My officials are currently working, in collaboration with a variety of disability organisations, on the production of a good practice guide covering disabled court users which is aimed at magistrates courts committees. The aim of the guide is to raise awareness in the magistrates courts of the special needs of all court users with disabilities. The guide will be published later in the year.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
Civil Servants (London Supplement)
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the annual cost of paying a London supplement to civil servants working in London in the last year for which figures are available. [17686]
Mr. Freeman:
The London weighting allowance was abolished on 1 October 1994. At that time, there were three levels of London weighting paid to non-industrial staff: inner London £1,776 per person per annum;
27 Feb 1997 : Column: 288
intermediate zone £1,015; and outer London £736. On the basis of where staff were employed on 1 April 1994, the total annual cost of the London allowances was £151 million. Since 1 April 1994, Departments and agencies have had delegated authority to determine the pay and allowances of their own staff.
Prisoners (Drug Tests)
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances video recording occurs of prisoners giving urine samples for random drug tests; [16357]
- (2) how many prisoners have (a) been fined, (b) lost remission and (c) been subject to other disciplinary sanction for refusing to co-operate with a random drug test before a video camera. [16358]
Miss Widdecombe: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 27 February 1997:
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the circumstances under which video-recording occurs of prisoners giving urine samples for random drug testing; and disciplinary sanctions resulting from prisoners refusing to co-operate with such a test before a video camera.
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the video recording of legal visits at (a) Belmarsh, (b) other prisons and (c) legal visiting rooms; [16049]
(3) in what circumstances audio recording of legal visiting rooms is permitted. [16051]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answers 26 February 1997]: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 27 February 1997:
27 Feb 1997 : Column: 289
Mr. Mackinlay:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per day on average over the past 12 months prisoners in special secure units at Belmarsh prison have been confined to their cells; and if he will make a statement. [17309]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 26 February 1997]: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 27 February 1997:
Mr. Mackinlay:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received from the solicitor representing Brian McHugh about the confidentiality and conditions for him to interview his client at Belmarsh prison; and if he will make a statement. [17368]
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 26 February 1997]: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 27 February 1997:
Dr. Godman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to put into practice the proposals contained in the report on health in the special secure units at Full Sutton, Whitemoor and Belmarsh prisons; and if he will make a statement. [17405]
27 Feb 1997 : Column: 290
Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 26 February 1997]: 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.
There are no circumstances under which a prisoner has given a sample of urine for the purposes of drug testing while being video-recorded. Consequently, no prisoners have been disciplined for refusal to co-operate with such conditions.
(2) on what statutory basis the video recording of legal visits is permitted; [16050]
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about video and audio recording of legal visits.
I shall deal with your second and third Questions first. Prison Rule 37 provides that legal visits shall take place out of hearing but in the sight of an officer.
One way to achieve this is to use CCTV without sound, recording the CCTV image on video tape to allow an officer to review the visit at a convenient time. The camera facilities used do not allow any documentation that may be open on the visits table to be read.
Belmarsh prison uses video-recorded CCTV without sound in the legal visits facility in its special secure unit (SSU). A system similar to that used in the SSU at Belmarsh is used in the other SSUs at Full Sutton and Whitemoor. CCTV without sound is used in the non-SSU legal visits rooms at Full Sutton, Long Lartin, Frankland and Wakefield, and can be video recorded if necessary. Information about the rest of the estate is not held centrally and accurate information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the hours prisoners have been confined to their cells in the special secure units (SSU) at Belmarsh prison.
Prisoners are confined to their cells at all times outside of the core day. The core day at Belmarsh SSU is from 0830 to 2030 hours. In addition, during the core day prisoners are confined to their cells for the following periods of time:
On Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for 3 hoursjy40 minutes.
On Wednesday for 6 hours and 15 minutes.
On Saturday and Sunday for 5 hours and 25 minutes.
The figures quoted are averages calculated over the last 12 months.
The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about representations received from the solicitor representing Brian McHugh.
Mr. McHugh has been categorised as an exceptional risk Category A prisoner. Such prisoners are held in special secure units and are subject to closed visits. In exceptional circumstances an open visit may be allowed with the approval of the Director of Dispersal Prisons. The Prison Service has received a number of representations from the solicitor representing Mr. McHugh in support of applications for open legal visits.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |