|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 20 December 2004, Official Report, column 1507W, to Question 205652, whether the £2.9 million is more than the authority would otherwise have received. 
Ms Blears: If police formula grant had been calculated using the police funding formula without application of a grant floor, North Yorkshire Police Authority would have received £2.9 million less than the £75.4 million actually allocated under the provisional settlement. The settlement ensures that all police authorities receive a minimum increase of 3.75 per cent. in general grants next year.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the parole board dealing with the application of Harry Roberts for parole heard evidence in secret to which neither Roberts nor his representatives had access. 
Paul Goggins [holding answer 10 January 2005]: The hearing of Mr. Roberts' case before a Parole Board panel has not yet taken place as a result of a series of judicial challenges over the non-disclosure of sensitive information in the parole dossier.
The first of those challenges was resolved on the basis of a consent order agreed by all parties that the question of non-disclosure to Mr. Roberts was a matter for the Parole Board. It was also agreed that the material in question should be disclosed to a Specially Appointed Advocate (SAA) who would act on the prisoner's behalf at a Directions hearing before the legal chairman of the Parole Board panel that was to hear Mr. Roberts' case. In May 2003, the chairman subsequently directed that the sensitive material should be disclosed only to the SAA.
Those decisions were then challenged on various grounds before the High Court in December 2003, at which Mr. Roberts was represented by the SAA in closed session. The Court of Appeal heard the case in July 2004. In dismissing the challenges on both occasions, the courts considered that the Parole Board had the inherent power and discretion under Section 32(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Parole Board Rules to adopt the necessary procedures to enable it to perform its risk assessment task. In Mr. Roberts' case, the courts held that the Parole Board's adoption of the SAA process, as a wholly exceptional measure in the circumstances of that case, was proportionate, correct and fair to Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to ensure that administrative staff working for police forces receive the same pay entitlement for working on public holidays as police officers, with particular reference to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police Force. 
Ms Blears: The setting of pay and conditions is a matter for individual police authorities. Forces who are members of the Police Staff Council (PSC) agree to implement pay awards agreed at the PSC as a minimum, and to take full account of the PSC handbook when setting terms and conditions for police staff.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of days sick leave for prison officers was in each prison region in England and Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
|Geographic area||Working days lost per officer 200304|
|East Midlands (north)||13.8|
|East Midlands (south)||11.9|
|Surrey and Sussex||16.4|
|Thames Valley and Hampshire||15.5|
|Yorkshire and Humberside||13.0|
|Prison service total||13.3|
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who is carrying out the survey to identify suitable sites for new, large prisons; and what the terms and conditions of the survey are; 
Paul Goggins: The Prison Service, acting on behalf of the National Offender Management Service, is responsible for the survey. The purpose of the survey is to identify suitable sites in urban areas, which can serve their local communities and are of a size commensurate with the type of prison required in that area.
The results of the survey are being analysed and further evaluation will take place before any offers or negotiations commence. The size and function of new prison establishments is determined by the size and mix of the projected population.
Paul Goggins: The Chief Executive for the National Offender Management Service, Mr. Martin Narey, has in the last 12 months met with a range of companies responsible for running prisons both here and in the United States.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for the Home Department, owns the freehold of the land for the London prisons of: Belmarsh, Brixton, Feltham, Holloway, Latchmere House, Pentonville, Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs, and also the private prison site of Bronzefield (Ashford, Middlesex).
12 Jan 2005 : Column 549W
(2) which sites in the Elmet constituency have been identified as potential sites for a new prison establishment; and when the decision on whether to build a new prison in Elmet will be taken. 
Paul Goggins [holding answer 13 December 2004]: A number of potential new sites are currently under consideration in Yorkshire. No final decision on location has yet been made and I am unable to confirm at this stage when such a decision will be taken.
Paul Goggins: The locally-agreed targets for the number of drug rehabilitation programme places (entrants) available during 200405, as well as the total number of prisoners who have already entered between 1 April 2004 and 6 December 2004, are shown in the following table.
|Establishment||Target for 200405||Total entrants as at 6 December 2004|
|Bullwood Hall (F)||60||39|
|Drake Hall (F)||85||50|
|East Sutton Park||0||0|
|North Sea Camp||0||0|
|Warren Hill (J)||60||45|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|