7 Mar 2001 : Column: 215W
Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Solicitor-General if he has received a recent request from the Wiltshire Coroner to hold a fresh inquest on the death of Ronald Maddison at the defence research establishment at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. 
The Solicitor-General: Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has requested the Attorney- General's consent for a fresh inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison which occurred in 1953. The Coroner has been asked to provide further information.
The procedure is governed by section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. Only the High Court may order a fresh inquest to be held. The Attorney-General's consent is required for the application to the High Court for that fresh inquest.
The application for the Attorney-General's consent will be considered when the further information he has requested arrives. If the Attorney-General grants his consent the Coroner will then be able to make the necessary application to the High Court.
Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons being built in England and Wales; when each is expected to open; and how many inmate places there will be at each. 
Mr. Boateng: One prison is currently under construction, Dovegate prison, and is due to open on 9 July 2001. There will be 800 prisoner places, of which 200 will form a therapeutic community.
Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in the UK have been rejected on non-compliance grounds in each of the last three years; and how many of those claims have subsequently been given substantive consideration (a) prior to an appeal hearing and (b) following a successful appeal. 
Mrs. Roche: The available information on the number of non-compliance decisions is given in the table.
Statistical information for each of the last three years on the consideration of non-compliance cases following an initial decision but before appeal is not held centrally and would therefore only be available through examination of case records at a disproportionate cost.
7 Mar 2001 : Column: 216W
We have not generally reconsidered claims following a successful appeal, although it is open to the Department to challenge the outcome of an appeal through the tribunal.
Non-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim, including non-attendance at a substantive interview within a reasonable period. From November 1991, these include refusals for failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity under the measures introduced then.
|Refused on non-compliance grounds|
|Year||Number of decisions||Cases under normal procedures||Cases under backlog criteria(3)|
(1) Information is for initial decision, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(2) Figures rounded to the nearest 5.
(3) Includes cases decided under measures announced in the White Paper.
(4) Provisional figures.
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason and by what amount Wandsworth prison's budget was cut last year; what other prisons received notification of budget cuts and what the amounts were in each case; and if he will make a statement on the budgetary control system for prisons. 
Mr. Boateng: Under the 1998 comprehensive settlement review (CSR) settlement, the Prison Service was required to make cash-releasing efficiency savings of £18 million, equivalent to one per cent., in 2000-01. Prison establishments were required to contribute efficiency savings towards this target, and their budget baselines adjusted accordingly. The table shows the amounts by which individual establishments' baselines were reduced.
The 1998 CSR also provided an additional £226 million over three years for the Prison Service to manage population increases and provide purposeful regimes for prisoners designed to prevent their reoffending. This money was allocated to individual establishments for specific purposes related to this aim.
It follows, therefore, that in some cases establishments will have experienced reductions in their baseline at the same time as they received additional CSR funding. The reductions in the baseline reflected required efficiency savings in performing existing functions, while the CSR allocations were to facilitate specific new work.
The allocation of budgets and the efficiency savings required of individual establishments are designed to achieve the most equitable allocation of resources across the service in the context of tight financial constraints and the requirement to make efficiency savings.
7 Mar 2001 : Column: 217W
|Establishment||Efficiency savings 2000-01|
|East Sutton Park||16,480|
|North Sea Camp||35,000|
7 Mar 2001 : Column: 218W
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons operate industrial workshops; how many prisoners are employed in such workshops; what the income and expenditure of each prison workshop is; and if he will make a statement. 
7 Mar 2001 : Column: 219W
Mr. Boateng [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 2001, c. 492W]: On 31 March 2000 there were 9,527 employed in public sector workshops, not 1,041 as previously stated.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|