|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hanson: Following the publication of Lord Carters review of prisons, Securing the Future, the proposed building and modernisation programme is aimed to bring overall net capacity of the prison estate to just over 96,000 places by 2014.
Maria Eagle: Finding out the number of safer cells installed during the last 10 years would incur disproportionate cost. However, there are to date in excess of 5,000 safer cells installed across the prison estate.
|Self-inflicted deaths( 1)||Self-inflicted deaths in safer cells( 1)|
|(1) The Prison Service definition of self-inflicted deaths is broader than the legal definition of suicide and includes all deaths where it appears that a prisoner has acted specifically to take their own life. This inclusive approach is used in part because inquest verdicts are often not available for some years after a death (some 20 per cent. of these deaths will not receive a suicide or open verdict at inquest). Annual numbers may change slightly from time to time as inquest verdicts and other information become available.|
(2) To 7 December 2007.
The Prison Service has safer cellsno cell can be considered totally safethat can complement a regime providing care of at risk prisoners and reduce risks around impulsive suicide attempts. The use of this type of accommodation should be seen as just one part of the comprehensive suicide prevention strategy. The design of safer cells has several features which can assist staff in the task of managing those at risk from suicide, such as specially designed furniture and fixtures which are manufactured and installed to make the attachment of ligatures very difficult, and access to window bars prevented via-non-opening windows with integral ventilation grills.
Maria Eagle: Existing Prison Service guidance, Prison Service Order 2700 Suicide Prevention and Self Harm Management, on the introduction of safer cells states that for new accommodation all cells in category A, category B and local prisons will be fitted with safer cells to the full safer cell specification and 25 per cent. of category C accommodation will be fitted with safer cells to the full specification.
All projects within both the existing 9,500 place programme and the additional programme for 10,500 places are assessed individually in response to local requirements. The individual projects to deliver the new capacity are being developed.
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what research the Government has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on differential conviction rates in rape cases in different police force areas in England and Wales. 
Home Office Research entitled Investigating and Detecting Recorded Offences of Rape was published on 20 July 2007. It looked at factors affecting detection and conviction rates using case files from eight police forces. The research included a comparison of the conviction rates across the force areas.
Mr. Hanson: The study Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community (Professor Richard Harrington and Professor Sue Bailey, Youth Justice Board for England and Wales 2005), identified 23 per cent. of young offenders as having learning difficulties, that is having an IQ of 70 or less.
Paul Goggins: I expect to receive the interim report from the Strategic Review of Parading in the new year. The date of their final report will depend on the time it takes to complete their consultations once the interim report has been published.
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to publish (a) an interim and (b) the final report from the Strategic Review of Parading in Northern Ireland. 
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to reply to the letter of 27 September 2007 from the hon. Member for North Down on police officers pay; and if he will provide an explanation for the delay in replying. 
Police officer pay in Northern Ireland is considered as part of the national Police Negotiating Board process. I understand that the hon. Lady wrote in identical terms to Home Office Ministers and
received a substantive response setting out the Governments position on police pay.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what capacity building he has undertaken to increase carbon (a) capture and (b) storage infrastructure. 
supporting one of the world's first commercial scale demonstrations of the full chain of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology on a coal-fired power station;
developing a regulatory regime for the storage of CO2 (framework to be outlined in the forthcoming Energy Bill);
establishing a fund, in 2005, of £25 million (since increased to £35 million) to encourage the industry-led demonstration of carbon abatement technologies including CCS;
funding a three-year programme of research, through the Natural Environment Research Council, into issues related to CCS, particularly storage of carbon dioxide;
supporting CCS research projects through the Technology Strategy Board programme (during the period 2004-08 we have allocated £11.2 million for research projects into all carbon abatement technologies);
working with the North Sea Basin Task Force to publish a report focusing specifically on the possibilities for developing a pipeline infrastructure in the North sea for transporting CO2 for permanent storage; and working very closely with the Chinese government to support an EU initiative for a near zero emissions coal project in China which will incorporate CCS technology.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what assessment his Department has made of the relative effectiveness of pre-combustion and post-combustion clean coal technologies; and if he will make a statement. 
We have selected post-combustion capture for the UK demonstration project since this meets our objective of demonstrating technology that is relevant and transferable to key global marketsparticularly in emerging economies. However, we consider that all CCS technologies have the potential to make valuable contributions to reducing carbon emissions and we expect to see all CCS options rolled out once they have been successfully demonstrated.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what assessment he has made of the potential contribution of pre-combustion clean coal technologies in meeting UK carbon reduction targets. 
undertaken to inform the UK's Carbon Abatement Technologies strategy showed that carbon capture and storage (involving the deployment of both pre- and post-combustion technologies) would contribute to the UK's carbon reduction targets from about 2020.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what plans his Department is considering for the encouragement of the use of pre-combustion coal technologies. 
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 22 November 2007]: The Department has a £35 million programme to support all carbon abatement technologies, including pre-combustion capture technologies and we have funded two research projects, the reports from which will shortly be available at:
looking specifically at pre-combustion technologies. We are also supporting the wider deployment of all CCS technologies through the development of a regulatory framework to govern the storage of carbon dioxide and other ongoing policy work.
We selected post-combustion capture for the UK demonstration project since this meets our objective of demonstrating technology that is relevant and transferable to key global marketsparticularly in emerging economies. However, we consider that all CCS technologies have the potential to make valuable contributions to reducing carbon emissions and we expect to see all CCS options rolled out once they have been successfully demonstrated.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what steps he has taken to consult (a) London residents and (b) local authorities in London on the transportation by rail through London of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement. 
The Government set out their preliminary view on the future of nuclear power in the consultation document, published on 23 May. Chapter 7 of the consultation document considers transport issues. In it the Government believe that the risks of transporting nuclear materials are very small and that there is an
effective regulatory framework in place which ensures that these risks are minimised and sensibly managed by industry. The consultation included a question on the transport of nuclear materials, which was:
Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the transport of nuclear materials? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?
The Government wrote to all local authorities to make them aware of the consultation and all were invited to the stakeholder meetings we held. The consultation ended on 10 October and the Government are currently carefully considering the responses received before they makes the decision in the new year.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what assessment he has made of the risks arising from the movement of nuclear waste by rail through (a) tunnels and (b) inner city areas; and if he will make a statement. 
Under health and safety legislation it is the responsibility of the organisation carrying out any activity to carry out a risk assessment. In the specific case of activities involving radioactive material this is a requirement of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (1999 No. 3232).
Particular activities carried out by the DfT in assessing risks associated with INF transport are detailed in my answer to PQ 169395. One of the reports referred to in 169395 (NRPB-W66) looks specifically at the radiological impact of INF transports through London and concludes that it is low.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|