| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether health services at detention centres such as Campsfield House are under the jurisdiction of Group 4 rather than the local area health authority; and whether routine medical examinations and psychiatric services have until now been provided to detainees.
Baroness Blatch: The provision of medical services at immigration detention centres is the responsibility of the Home Office, not local area health authorities. These services are provided under contract, either with the Home Office direct or, in the case of Campsfield House and Tinsley House, with the private contractors managing the centres.
All immigration detainees are encouraged to have a medical examination on arrival at detention centres. Medical facilities are in keeping with those provided by a general practitioner. Where necessary, detainees can be taken to an outside hospital for psychiatric or other medical treatment.
The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether as recently reported, four out of five detainees in centres such as Campsfield House are held without charge in continuous detention, and if so, whether this contravenes the UN Convention on Refugees and is contrary to the practice of other EU countries.
Baroness Blatch: The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees does not preclude the detention of asylum seekers. All detainees in immigration detention centres are detained under powers contained in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. These powers are used very sparingly and detention is reviewed regularly. Practice in other European Union countries is a matter for them.
Police Cautions: Disclosure
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the statement made by Baroness Blatch on 2nd December 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 518), what are their reasons for considering that no protection against disclosure of police cautions needs to be provided under the Police Bill [H.L.] whereas effective protection is given in relation to "spent" criminal convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Baroness Blatch: Details of cautions recorded in central police records will be disclosed in Criminal Record Certificates and Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates. Both types of certificate will be issued only in respect of occupations and offices which are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and will include details of "spent" convictions.
Clause 111(3) of the Police Bill, as amended in Committee, provides for a new criminal offence if a member, officer or employee of a registered body discloses information from a Criminal Record Certificate or Enhanced Certificate other than in the course of his duty. This would apply to information about cautions.
Custody Time Limit: Excess Detention
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether in the light of the observations by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in Oluto v. Home Office (Times Law Report,
11th December 1996), they will ensure that individuals committed for trial and held in custody, who are detained for a period in excess of the prescribed 111-day time limit through no fault of their own, have a right to compensation.
Baroness Blatch: There are no plans to introduce a right of compensation to individuals who have either been detained in excess of the prescribed custody time limits or subsequently shown to be not guilty. Existing
statutes and regulations governing custody time limits are in place to encourage the rapid preparation of cases and ensure that a defendant does not spend any longer in custody than is permitted. Once the custody time limit has expired, a defendant is entitled to be released on bail unless the prosecution has sought, and the court granted, an extension.Parliamentary By-elections: Timing
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider that there is a constitutional convention as to the period of time within which a by-election should be declared on the death or resignation of a Member of Parliament; and if so, whether they will explain the nature of that convention.
Baroness Blatch: The present convention on the timing of Parliamentary by-elections rests on the recommended guidelines agreed by the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law in 1973. These cover the period to be allowed for the motion moving the writ for the election following the date of the vacancy. Details were published in the letter dated 26th November 1973 which Mr Speaker Selwyn Lloyd sent to the Prime Minister. It was published by HMSO under Cmnd5500 and a copy is available in the House of Lords Library.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What has been the period of time between the death, resignation or retirement of a Member of Parliament and the declaration of a by-election for each by-election during the past 10 years.
Baroness Blatch: The information requested is available in the House of Commons Library Research Paper 96/50, which covers by-elections since the 1992 general election, and in Public Information Office Factsheets 27 and 58, covering, respectively, the periods 1983 to 1987, and 1987 to 1992. These papers are available to noble Lords through the House of Lords Library.
Research Paper 96/50 does not include the most recent by-election, which was held in the constituency of Barnsley East on 12th December. This followed the death of the sitting Member, Mr Terry Patchett, on 11th October 1996.
Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Blatch on 10th December (HL Deb. WA 89), how many prosecutions and convictions there have been under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 since its enactment.
Baroness Blatch: The information requested for the years 1980 to 1995 is given in the table. Information for earlier years is not available.
| Prosecutions | Convictions | |
| 1980 | -- | -- |
| 1981 | -- | -- |
| 1982 | -- | -- |
| 1983 | -- | -- |
| 1984 | 1 | 1 |
| 1985 | 1 | -- |
| 1986 | 1 | 1 |
| 1987 | -- | -- |
| 1988 | -- | -- |
| 1989 | -- | -- |
| 1990 | 1 | 1 |
| 1991 | 1 | 1 |
| 1992 | 1 | 1 |
| 1993 | -- | -- |
| 1994 | -- | -- |
| 1995 | -- | -- |
(1) Purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium for reward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the speech of the Baroness Blatch on the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill on 12th December (H.L. Deb., cols.
1228-31), what they regard as sufficient evidence
of (a) "pressure to leave Hong Kong";
(b) "discrimination"; and (c) "racial harassment"; and
Further to the speech of the Baroness Blatch on the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill on 12th December (H.L. Deb., cols.
1228-31), why they have stated that they would admit members of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong to the United Kingdom only if "they had nowhere else to go"; and
Further to the speech of the Baroness Blatch on the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill on 12th December (H.L. Deb., cols.
1228-31), how the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong can be "secure" in their knowledge of the Government's intentions as to their future in the absence of prescribed criteria "setting down in detail the specific circumstances which would need to be
Further to the speech of the Baroness Blatch on the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill on 12th December (H.L. Deb., cols.
1228-31), whether their guarantee to the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong of admission to the United Kingdom for settlement "if ever they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong" is based upon clearly prescribed criteria published in Hong Kong; if so, what are the criteria, and if not, whether they will publish the criteria; and
13 Jan 1997 : Column WA16
- met" for the Government's assurances to come into effect.
Baroness Blatch: I refer the noble Lord to the position which I set out during the debate on the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill on 12th December, in particular at column 1231. The guarantee applies only to those with nowhere else to go because members of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who are not solely British nationals, but hold the nationality of another country, will have the option of going there. We have not prescribed detailed criteria for operation of the guarantee, but we have undertaken that it will not be interpreted narrowly or restrictively.
Prisoners: Responsibility for Mental Health
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they agree with Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons that the National Health Service should take over responsibility for the mental health of prisoners detained in Her Majesty's Prisons; and, if not, why not.
Baroness Blatch: There are no current plans for the National Health Service to assume responsibility for the mental health care of prisoners.
We are, however, committed to improving health care for prisoners, including mental health care. We believe that there is considerable potential for achieving better health services and better value for money by working closely with the National Health Service and other providers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page