---

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March, Official Report, column 699, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692-93.[20388]

Mr. Howard: A breakdown by project of the Home Office's private finance initiative schemes, as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book, is given in table 1. Current estimates for the projects are shown in table 2.

Table 1: Red Book figures

				£ million
Estimated capital investment	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	Total
Bridgend Prison	37.0	0	0	37.0
Fazakerley Prison	37.0	0	0	37.0
Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) caseworking information technology system	21.0	0	0	21.0
Lowdham Grange Prison	24.0	0	0	24.0
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System II (information technology system)	0.5	0	0	0.5
Cookham Wood, Secure Training Centre (STC)	6.0	0	0	6.0
Gringley (STC)	10.0	0	0	10.0
Medomsley (STC)	5.0	5.0	0	10.0
Onley (STC)	5.0	5.0	0	10.0
STC 5	5.0	5.0	0	10.0
Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) 3 (Prison)	6.0	37.0	37.0	80.0
DCMF 4 (Prison)	0	6.0	37.0	43.0
IND Detention Accommodation (South East District)	1.0	0	0	1.0
IND Detention Accommodation (Heathrow)	0	14.0	0	14.0
Home Office SW1 estate	10.0	30.0	10.0	50.0
Prisons/boilerhouses	9.0	3.0	0	12.0
Prisons/kitchens	8.0	0	0	8.0
Prisons/heath centres	3.0	0	0	3.0
Prisons major refurbishments	12.0	12.0	0	24.0
Prisons/other	2.0	0	0	2.0
Prisons/health information technology	0	6.0	0	6.0
Public Safety Radio Communications Project	0	10.0	40.0	50.0
Total	201.5	133.0	124.0	458.5

17 Mar 1997 : Column: 405

Table 2: Current revised figures

				£ million
	1997-98	1998-99	1990-00	Total
Bridgend prison	35.0	0	0	35.0
Fazakerley prison	41.0	0	0	41.0
Immigration and nationality directorate (IND) caseworking information technology system	21.0	0	0	21.0
Lowdham grange prison	24.0	0	0	24.0
Home office large major enquiry system II (information technology system)	0.5	0	0	0.5
Cookham wood, secure training centre (STC)	7.0	0	0	7.0
Gringley (STC)	10.0	0	0	10.0
Medomsley (STC)	3.0	7.0	0	10.0
Onley (STC)	10.0	0	0	10.0
STC 5	2.0	8.0	0	10.0
Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) 3 (Prison)	6.0	35.0	35.0	76.0
DCMF 4 (Prison)	6.0	35.0	35.0	76.0
IND detention accommodation (South East District)	1.0	0	0	1.0
IND detention accommodation (Heathrow)	0	14.0	0	14.0
Home Office SW1 estate	10.0	30.0	10.0	50.0
Prisons/boilerhouses	12.0	9.0	9.0	30.0
Prisons/kitchens	10.0	6.0	6.0	22.0
Prisons/health centres	0	1.0	1.0	2.0
Prisons/other	2.0	2.0	2.0	6.0
Prisons/health information technology	0	6.0	0	6.0
Public safety radio communications project	0	10	40	50
Total	200.5	163	138	501.5

17 Mar 1997 : Column: 407

Special Secure Units

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, columns 289-90, if he will list those recommendations which have been implemented through amendments to the SSU operating standards; if he will introduce a system of open visits which incorporates measures to prevent the smuggling of unauthorised items to prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [20365]

Miss Widdecombe: 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 A. J. Pearson to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 17 March 1997:

The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the implementation of the recommendations of the Acheson Report.

The following recommendations have been implemented through amendments to the special secure unit (SSU) Operating Standards:

Recommendation 1

Given the short duration of the present regime it is premature to come to a firm conclusion on its impact on prisoners health. We therefore advised that the general health of prisoners contained in SSUs be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account their degree of susceptibility to psychological symptoms.

Response

The Operating Standards have been amended to require that in future medical officers should undertake formal reviews of the health of prisoners detained in the SSU every three months.

Recommendation 2

A standard set of procedures applicable to all SSUs should be devised, circulated to all parties and enforced to ensure the most expeditious transfer of prisoners requiring emergency treatment to NHS hospitals.

Response

The Operating Standards have been amended to emphasise the importance of prompt action.

Recommendation 6

Sentence planning should be introduced as with other long term prisoners.

Response

The overriding consideration in determining the length of time a prisoner spends in the Unit must be security. However, the Operating Standards have been amended to provide that regular formal review of SSU prisoners should be introduced (linked to Recommendation 1 above) to cover health, behaviour and attitude, etc.

The following recommendation has not been implemented:

Recommendation 8

It is the unanimous view of the group that in the interests of health prisoners in the SSUs should have access to open visits with members of immediate family.

Response

The Prison Service has considered Sir Donald Acheson's recommendation that prisoners in SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. The Service has made numerous improvements to the security of SSUs but closed visits represent the only guaranteed means of preventing the passage of unauthorised items between prisoner and visitors. Closed visits therefore remain a necessary security measure.

The remaining recommendations endorsed existing policy.

17 Mar 1997 : Column: 408

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place (a) the 1989 Home Office research and planning unit report into special secure units and (b) the 1990 report of the board of visitors of HMP Leicester on the special secure unit in the Library. [20058]

Miss Widdecombe: 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:

The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the 1989 Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report on special secure units and the 1990 Board of Visitors report on the special secure unit at Leicester.

A copy of the 1989 Research and Planning Unit report was sent to the Library at the time of publication. The 1990 Leicester Board of Visitors report was not published. The decision on whether to publish a report from a local board of visitors to the Home Secretary rests with the board itself.

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if provision of a minimum period of undisturbed rest within a reasonably dark environment for the purpose of sleep is a right or a privilege within a special secure unit; and what opportunities are available to a prisoner to complain about frequent or unnecessary interruptions of their pattern of sleep. [19940]

Miss Widdecombe: 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:

The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the provision of a minimum period of sleep for prisoners in a special secure unit.

Exceptional risk Category A prisoners in SSUs (and other Category A prisoners elsewhere) are observed at hourly intervals throughout the night for security reasons. Observation takes place from outside the cell to avoid disturbing the prisoner by opening the cell door or switching on the main cell lights.

Prisoners in SSUs have access to the same grievance procedures as other prisoners. Complaints may be made orally to prison staff or in writing in accordance with the Prison Service request and complaints procedure. Prisoners may also refer complaints and grievances to the Board of Visitors or the Prisons Ombudsman. Complaints may also be lodged via members of parliament, legal representatives, embassies (where appropriate) and others.

---