| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Altcourse Prison
Jackie Ballard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial penalties have been incurred at HMP Altcourse since the prison opened; if he will list the reasons for each penalty; how many of the recommendations for improvements made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report were implemented before the publication of the report; what conclusions were drawn from the recent security audit; by what date recommendations for improvement were implemented; and what penalties were incurred by Group 4 as a result of that audit. [121468]
Mr. Boateng: Financial penalties totalling £212,728.23 were withheld for the period 1 December 1997 to 30 August 1998 for Altcourse prison. Of these, £195,000 have been calculated by converting the penalty points accrued during the period to a financial value in accordance with the performance mechanism contained in the contract. The amount also includes the sum of £17,728.23 which has been deducted from the contractor for 'doubling', in excess of permitted levels. There have been no financial penalties since 1 September 1998.
16 May 2000 : Column: 74W
The incidents leading to the deductions are listed in the table and are failures to comply with performance standards.
The inspection report on Altcourse prison was published on 19 April. In accordance with the protocol for handling inspection reports, the Prison Service will produce an action plan within 30 working days of publication of the report, addressing all the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is not possible to say how many of the 106 recommendations were fully implemented before publication, but once the action plan has been completed and reviewed at Prison Service Headquarters, I will write to the hon. Member with a progress report on implementation.
The overall compliance rating of the security audit of Altcourse prison was acceptable. Of the modules audited, four were rated as good, two as acceptable and three as deficient. Only one of these was rated as a significant finding and this has been fully addressed.
An action plan has been produced addressing the recommendations for improvements, and some non- compliant baselines were resolved during the course of the audit. Ninety per cent. of the action plan has already been implemented with full implementation to be completed by the end of June. No financial penalties were incurred as a result of the audit.
16 May 2000 : Column: 75W
EU Asylum Policy
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received from the European Commission in respect of powers exercised by virtue of any convention or treaty article concerning the standardisation of tests for accepting asylum applications to Governments of member states. [121631]
Mrs. Roche: I am aware of no proposals from the European Commission concerning the standardisation of the criteria for the recognition of refugees, or for determining the member state responsible for determining an asylum claim made within the European Union. Such proposals would be consistent with the requirements of article 63 of the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the European Commission has to date produced only a discussion document on "Towards Common Standards on Asylum Procedures" and a working paper entitled "Revisiting the Dublin Convention". The latter seeks to initiate debate on the Dublin Convention as the first step towards developing Community legislation for determining which member state is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted in one of the member states. The Government's view of this document can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 10 May, deposited in the Library. The Government's view on the discussion paper "Towards common Standards on Asylum Procedures" can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 26 March 2000 deposited in the Library.
Human Rights Act 1998
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 following the judgment of
16 May 2000 : Column: 76W
the Court of Appeal in the case of R v. Perry; what steps he is taking to prevent abuse of the type referred to in the judgment; and if he will make a statement. [121986]
Mr. Straw [holding answer 12 May 2000]: The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in United Kingdom law to most of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which successive governments and Parliament have abided by for the last 50 years. The Court of Appeal takes a robust approach to those who waste its time and the position should be no different when the Human Rights Act comes fully into force. All judges, lay magistrates and their legal advisers are being trained to deal with Convention points effectively.
Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
Mrs. Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial and other assistance is available at the time of release for prisoners freed by the Court of Appeal on grounds of wrongful conviction; and if he will make a statement. [121937]
Mr. Straw: Most prisoners when released from prison are given a discharge grant to help them meet their immediate needs. The position of prisoners discharged from court after a sentence has been quashed or reduced on appeal is that they would normally be entitled to a grant provided they have been in custody for at least nine days of their sentence.
In cases of wrongful conviction where it has been decided that an individual qualifies for payment of compensation, he or she may then apply for an interim payment to help alleviate any immediate financial difficulties.
Funding has been made available this year to enable a voluntary body, familiar with prisoner resettlement issues, to develop, on a national basis, an advice and counselling service specifically geared to the needs of successful appellants. We hope to be entering into discussions soon with possible providers of such a service. The Probation Service may also provide assistance on a voluntary basis.
Asylum and Immigration
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances (a) asylum seekers, (b) persons granted asylum, (c) persons granted exceptional leave to remain and (d) other persons subject to immigration control may lawfully work in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [121812]
Mrs. Roche: The circumstances vary according to the category.
Asylum seekers who have not received a first decision on their asylum application within six months may apply to the Home Office for permission to work. Where written permission is granted, they will be able to take employment lawfully.
Persons granted asylum are given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and as such have no restriction attached to their stay. They may seek whatever employment they wish and they do not need to seek permission from the Immigration Authorities to take employment.
16 May 2000 : Column: 77W
Persons granted exceptional leave to remain are free to seek employment within the limit of their leave to remain. They do not need to seek permission from the Immigration Authorities in order to do so.
There are a considerable number of categories under which persons subject to immigration control may lawfully engage in employment. Details of the various categories which permit employment and self-employment within the Immigration Rules, and the conditions attached to leave granted under those categories, are set out in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395. In addition, there are a number of concessions that operate outside the Rules, under which those who meet the requisite criteria may lawfully take employment. Details of the various concessions are contained in the Immigration Directorate's Instructions. Copies of the Rules and the Instructions are available in the Library on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/hpg.htm.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |