| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Tuesday, 11th February 1997.
Prisoners in Hospital: Use of Restraints
Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the present policy governing the use of mechanical restraints on prisoners receiving medical care; under what circumstances restraints may be removed from a prisoner; under what circumstances a prisoner may be chained to an inanimate object; and whether they will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued by the Prison Service; and
What is the current timetable for revising the Prison Service security manual in which new guidelines for restraining prisoners receiving hospital care are due to appear, and whether it is yet possible to identify any major changes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter to Baroness Masham of Ilton from the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, dated 11th February 1997.
Lady Blatch has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of restraints on prisoners in hospital and the revision of our policy on this issue, with particular reference to the chaining of prisoners to inanimate objects.
I issued a complete revision of section 60 of the Security Manual on 31st January. This sets out the arrangements to be made by governors for prisoners receiving medical treatment outside the prison, and the circumstances in which restraints may and may not be applied. An amendment to Section 39 of the Manual, providing instructions on category A prisoners receiving outside medical treatment, was issued at the same time.
A copy of these new instructions is attached and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.
Prisoner in Addenbrooke's Hospital: Use of Restraints
Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether there will be a Prison Service inquiry into the recent restraint of a prisoner in Addenbrooke's Hospital following brain surgery; and, if so, whether they will place a copy of the report of the inquiry in the Library.
Baroness Blatch: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter to Baroness Masham of Ilton from the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, dated 11th February 1997.
Lady Blatch has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the of use restraints on a prisoner in Addenbrooke's Hospital following brain surgery and whether there will be an inquiry.
In accordance with the requirements of security policy at the time, a full risk assessment was carried out when the prisoner referred to was released to hospital for surgery in May 1996. This was updated as appropriate and decisions regarding the application of restraints were based upon the risk assessment. The prisoner was in the very early stages of a sentence for serious drugs offences, and despite his ill health, it was considered appropriate to apply restraints, unless their removal was requested by medical or nursing staff. Restraints were not applied when he was located in the intensive care unit. I do not consider that there needs to be an inquiry into this incident.
Police Bill, Part III: Amendments
Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have for further amendments to Part III of the Police Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Contradictory amendments to Part III of the Police Bill have been passed. The Government do not believe that either of these amendments is acceptable as it stands. Further amendment is therefore essential.
We have considered carefully the points raised during the debate. There are two key principles that we believe must be maintained. First, the authorisation of intrusive operations should remain the responsibility of chief officers. There should be effective external scrutiny of those decisions but they should not be the subject of second guessing. Second, chief officers must remain fully accountable for their decisions and remain liable to answer in court as to why they have authorised these operations. They should also be answerable for any complaint arising from the authorisation of an operation and be liable to be named in the annual report of the commissioner for any wrongly authorised operation.
Accordingly, we shall table amendments which will provide:
- that responsibility for authorising operations should be that of the chief officer;
that the prior approval of a commissioner will be required where there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation could affect legal, medical or journalistic privilege or where the operation involves intrusion into residential dwellings, offices and hotel bedrooms. Prior approval would not be necessary where the chief officer was acting with the consent of the person able to give permission in respect of the relevant premises or in urgent cases;
that the commissioner will approve an authorisation if he is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing that the action is likely to be of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime and that what the action seeks to achieve could not reasonably be achieved by other means;
a right of appeal to the chief commissioner against a decision taken by the commissioner;
for commissioners to serve for a fixed period of three years, and for their removal from office within that period to require the consent of both Houses.
Value Added Tax
Lord Harris of High Cross asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What would be the effect on the cost of living index of imposing VAT on all excluded goods and services (except rent and interest payments): (a) at 5 per cent.; (b) at 10 per cent.; and (c) at 17.5 per cent.; and
What revenue would be gained by the Exchequer by imposing VAT on all excluded goods and services (except rent and interest payments): (a) at 5 per cent.; (b) at 10 per cent.; and (c) at 17.5 per cent.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): HM Treasury's Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs estimates the revenue cost of zero-rated or exempted goods and services is approximately £20 billion in 1996-97. This assumes a VAT rate of 17.5 per cent.; the cost of intermediate rates can be approximated pro rata. The estimate excludes the reduced rate on domestic fuel and power. It also excludes the effect of behavioural changes and will therefore tend to overestimate the extra revenue from withdrawing exemptions or zero rating. The estimated RPI impact is around 1 per cent., 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. for VAT rates of 5 per cent., 10 per cent., and 17.5 per cent., respectively.
VAT and Repairs to Buildings
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they expect to complete their consideration of the propriety of taxing repairs to listed and other buildings at 17.5 per cent., and to announce their conclusions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government are not considering the propriety of taxing repairs to listed or any other buildings. The Government have repeatedly stated that they have no plans to change the current position whereby repairs to listed buildings are liable to VAT at the standard rate.
VAT: EC Provisions
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will list for United Kingdom goods affected by the adoption of European legislation on VAT, the effect on the rate of VAT for the goods and the date from which the change, if any, may apply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The principal European Community provision on VAT (the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388) establishes a broad framework for rates of tax which may be applied, including a standard rate of not less than 15 per cent.; the option to apply one or two reduced rates (of not less than 5 per cent.) to certain specified items; and lists mandatory exemptions from the tax. The directive also includes certain special provisions, such as those providing for the UK's zero rates. No other EC provisions bearing upon the rate of VAT are immediately in prospect, nor have any prospective changes been agreed. Since all EC VAT matters are subject to unanimity, no changes can be made to any aspect of the existing regime without the UK's agreement.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What European legislation concerning VAT has been, or is in prospect of being, adopted in United Kingdom law, and under what system of voting in which organs of the Community it has been, or may be, adopted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Sixth VAT Directive (77/388) is the principal European Community (EC) level agreement on VAT. Its provisions, together with those of a number of subsidiary directives dealing with certain specific aspects of the tax, are reflected in UK law (principally in the VAT Act 1994). The legal base for all EC VAT matters is Article 99 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Unanimity in the relevant Council of Ministers (ECOFIN) is thus required for all legislative measures.
The Commission issued a document in July 1996 (COM 328) (96) final), outlining a programme of suggested changes to the current EC VAT system, but have not yet followed it up with legislative proposals. The current system remains in force automatically in the absence of unanimous agreement to change it. There is, therefore, no question of the UK being forced to agree to any change.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page