Skip to main content

Written Answers

Volume 582: debated on Thursday 23 October 1997

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Written Answers

Thursday, 23rd October 1997.

Family Planning Agencies: Funding Criteria

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will make funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) dependent on these agencies not supporting or participating in the management of programmes of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation.

All funding from the Department for International Development for reproductive health is contingent on respect for the principles upheld at the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, including the principle of informed free choice in family planning programmes. UNFPA and IPPF neither engage in nor condone coercive family planning practices. Both are at the forefront of international efforts to encourage observance of the standards of family planning agreed at Cairo.

Mental Incapacity: Law Commission Report

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will take forward the Law Commission's Report on Mental Incapacity.

The Law Commission's Report on Mental Incapacity is a thorough and detailed examination of the current law. It provides a coherent framework for reform. The Government recognise, however, that the report addresses sensitive issues on which strong personal views may be held.The Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to legislate in this area without fresh public consultation. They therefore hope to issue a consultation paper by the end of the year seeking views on the full range of the Law Commission's recommendations.The Law Commission's report does not make any recommendations concerning euthanasia. The Government are of the certain view, in line with the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, that euthanasia cannot be sanctioned in any circumstances. The consultation paper will therefore not seek views on this subject.

Scotland: Right Of Appeal To House Of Lords

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have yet taken decisions on a question raised in the debate on the White Paper on Scotland on 30 July, namely on the means by which the proposed legislation on a Scottish Parliament would give effect to their intention to devolve the present right of appeal from a Scottish Court to the House of Lords (HL Debates. col. 203).

The Government's proposal, as set out in the White Paper. Scotland's Parliament (Cm 3658) is that responsibility for the criminal and civil courts in Scotland should be devolved. We are now considering how best to give effect to that proposal and in particular how it should affect the right of appeal to the House of Lords in civil cases.

Human Rights Legislation

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are their plans to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.

We are introducing the Human Rights Bill into Your Lordships' House today. We will publish a White Paper tomorrow to explain how our proposals will work.

Highpoint Prison

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether staff at Highpoint Prison in Suffolk received instructions to prepare for a possible evacuation of the prison at some time between 25 and 30 December 1980, and if so, why these instructions were issued.

I regret to advise the noble Lord that I am unable to answer his Question, as records for Highpoint Prison relating to the period concerned are no longer available. The governor's journal is the record in which a written note is made of significant events concerning the establishment on a daily basis. It has not proved possible to locate that journal.

Belmarsh Prison

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether any convicted prisoners are now held in the Special Secure Unit at HMP Belmarsh, which is designed for remand prisoners; and, if so, how many.

There are no convicted Category A Exceptional Escape Risk prisoners held in the building, which previously housed the Special Secure Unit (SSU) at Belmarsh. The accommodation now holds only Category A High Escape Risk prisoners and is not run as an SSU.

Prisoners: Closed Visits

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many prisoners in England, Wales and Scotland are currently subject to a requirement for "closed" visits.

A policy of mandatory closed visits for all exceptional risk Category A prisoners held in Special Secure Units was introduced in June 1995. There are currently six such prisoners.In addition, governors have discretion under Prison Standing Order 5 to impose closed visits in respect of any prisoner where security or control considerations so require. Figures for the number of prisoners currently subject to discretional closed visits are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Prison Officers: Inquest Verdicts

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether inquests have been held into the deaths of prison officers Marcia Whitehurst and Peter Curran, who died in separate but similar suspicious circumstances in early 1997 near HMP Whitemoor; and, if so, with what result; and, if not, when they are likely to be held.

The inquest into Ms Marcia Whitehurst's death was held on 18 August 1997. Mr. Peter Curran's inquest opened on 25 July 1997 and was adjourned until 16 October to allow all witnesses to be heard. It concluded on 17 October 1997.The verdict of both inquests was accidental death.

Special Secure Units: Prisoners

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many prisoners are now held in each Special Secure Unit in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland; and how many of the total so held have been convicted of (i) terrorist-type offences and (ii) other offences.

There are six prisoners held in Special Secure Units in England and Wales, none of whom have committed terrorist-type offences. The Secretary of State for Scotland had responsibility for the Scottish Prison Service; however, I understand that there are no prisoners held in Special Secure Units there.

Prisoners' Deaths: Independent Investigation

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the meeting between the Prison Ombudsman and the Minister responsible for prisons, due to take place on or after 13 October; and in particular whether progress was made concerning effective and independent investigations of deaths and suicides among prisoners and immigration detainees.

A coroner's inquest already provides an independent investigation into every death in Prison Service custody, which is also subject to an internal investigation by the Prison Service. The Prison Service is currently considering whether its internal investigation reports should in future be made public. In the light of the outcome of this review, we will consider whether there is a case for extending the Prison Ombudsman's remit.

Campsfield House

asked Her Majesty's Government:What proposals they have for improving the regime for inmates held at Campsfield Detention Centre near Oxford whilst the centre remains in use.

Following the disturbance of 20 August at Campsfield House, it was necessary for health and safety reasons to restrict access to damaged areas, and those where contractors were working to make repairs. Numbers of detainees were reduced to 100, about half its normal capacity, and this level has since been maintained. Contingency arrangements were put into effect to provide as many services as possible, but in the immediate aftermath of the disturbance some facilities were reduced, or temporarily unavailable. It is unfortunate that the facilities provided for detainees' recreation and education were those targeted and destroyed. The library, classrooms, computer, televisions, sports equipment, shop, telephones and laundry were either seriously damaged or completely destroyed. The living accommodation and personal possessions were barely touched.A comprehensive repair programme has made significant progress and most facilities are now available: religious, educational, recreational and communal activities have all resumed. It is expected that the full range of services will be provided by 7 November, when the final building works are due for completion.

While there is no evidence that conditions at the centre were the cause of the disturbance, we are taking the opportunity in its aftermath to consider what other arrangements can be made for activity which will better meet detainees' needs. A report on the disturbance at Campsfield has been undertaken by a governor from the Prison Service. The recommendations and other issues arising from the report are currently being considered.

Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will publish a table showing the number of applications for asylum received, the number granted, the number given exceptional leave to remain and the number rejected in respect of citizens of Turkey in each of the years 1995 and 1996, and in 1997 up to the latest convenient month; and what was the number of applications outstanding at the end of those periods.

The information requested is given in the table.

Decisions on applications1 for asylum in the United Kingdom from Turkish nationals, excluding dependants, 1995, 1996 and January to September 1997
Number of principal applicants
1995199619972 January to September
Asylum applications31,8201,4951,130
Total decisions3,49951,4051,280
— Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum505560
Recognition rate (%)5%4%5%
— Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain5352015
Exceptional leave rate {%)3%1%1%
— Total refusals9101,3301,205
Refusal rate (%)92%95%94%
Applications outstanding at end of period64,2804,2804,050
1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.
2 Provisional figures.
3 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.
4 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.
5 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.
6 Takes into account withdrawn applications.

Single Vehicle Approval

asked Her Majesty's Government:Which British kit and replica car manufacturers have received "single vehicle approval" (SVA), with dates; which other British manufacturers having made an application for SVA, either have not received approval or are awaiting retest; which other British manufacturers have notified the Minister that they are making design changes to their products and will be subsequently resubmitting for approval; and when the Government will publish the final SVA specifications.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(Baroness Hayman)

I have asked the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency, Mr. Ron Oliver, if he will reply to the noble Lord.

Letter to the Earl of Haddington from the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate, Mr. R. Oliver, dated 23 October 1997.

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about Single Vehicle Approval (SVA); namely which British kit and replica car manufacturers have received SVA, with dates; which other British manufacturers, having made an application for SVA, either have not received approval or are awaiting retests; which other British manufacturers have notified the Minister that they are making design changes to their products and will be subsequently resubmitting for approval: and when the Government will publish the final SVA specification.

The following kit and replica car manufacturers received "SVA" on the dates shown:

  • Frogeye Car Company: 14 October 1997
  • Quantum Sports Cars: 1 October 1997, 2nd car 20 October 1997
  • Genesis: 21 August 1997
  • Car Craft: 14 October 1997
  • Domino Cars: 8 September 1997.

There are no outstanding applications or vehicles awaiting retest. There is also no requirement for kit and replica car manufacturers to supply notification about design changes to their vehicles.

The following manufacturers have had their vehicles inspected either as a consultation inspection or in VI training inspections and we are aware that some of them will be making design changes to meet the SVA requirements:

  • Chesil Speedsters1
  • Royale Motor Company
  • Claydon Hamilton
  • DJ Sportscars
  • Dakar Cars
  • Minari Engineering
  • Marlin Engineering
  • Hornet
  • Scamp Motor Company
  • Westfield Sportscars1
  • JBA Engineering
  • Dwornik Engineering
  • Brooke Cars
  • Robin Hood Engineering
  • YKC Engineering
  • Teal Cars
  • Ultima Sportscars
  • Hawk Developments
  • Beauford Cars
  • SSC
  • Fisher Sportscars
  • GCS Hawke
  • GTM Cars
  • Lomax Motor Company
  • SP Motors
  • NG Cars
  • Formula 27.

1 Manufacturers which have subsequently resubmitted cars having made changes to successfully comply with SVA requirements.

The current SVA specifications came into force on 1 July 1997 and are contained in the Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 1996. Amendments to these regulations are currently the subject of a consultation exercise which ends on 14 November and it is anticipated that amendments will be made by 1 January 1998.

Bus Lanes

asked Her Majesty's Government:In respect of each London Borough, (a) how many miles of road carry scheduled bus services; (b) how many miles of bus lanes are in existence; and (c) how many miles of bus lanes are planned, with expected dates of implementation.

Borough-by-borough information on the first topic is not held by my department. Bus lanes currently existing in the capital amount to just over 76 miles. Additional bus lanes, to the extent of some seven miles, are under development by the Traffic Director for London. Other bus lanes are being developed as part of the 540-mile London Bus Priority Network, but specific proposals for these have still to be agreed by the boroughs. The following three tables of figures, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House, show borough-by-borough details.

Table 1. Miles of Bus Lanes Existing in London
AuthorityMotorwaysPriority RoutesOther Local RoutesTotals
Barking and Dagenham0.000.000.580.58
Barnet0.000.001.441.44
Bexley0.000.000.020.02
Brent0.000.001.251.25
Bromley0.000.070.500.57
Camden0.001.165.126.28
City of London0.000.630.320.95
Croydon0.000.071.621.69
Ealing0.000.002.402.40
Enfield0.000.001.561.56
Greenwich0.000.001.221.22

Table 1. Miles of Bus Lanes Existing in London

Authority

Motorways

Priority Routes

Other Local Routes

Totals

Hackney0.001.830.722.55
Hammersmith and Fulham0.000.005.175.17
Haringey0.002.690.453.14
Harrow0.000.001.141.14
Havering0.000.000.000.00
Hillingdon1.000.000.391.39
Hounslow0.000.151.711.86
Islington0.002.402.104.50
Kensington and Chelsea0.000.170.470.64
Kingston Upon Thames0.000.001.191.19
Lambeth0.004.551.195.74
Lewisham0.001.171.502.67
Merton0.000.630.130.76
Newham0.000.173.193.36
Redbridge0.000.000.210.21
Richmond0.000.002.012.01
Southwark0.002.551.574.12
Sutton0.000.000.400.40
Tower Hamlets0.002.531.684.21
Waltham Forest0.000.002.902.90
Wandsworth0.000.873.634.50
Westminster0.004.491.335.82
Totals1.0026.1349.1176.24

Table 2. Plans for Bus Lanes in London (miles)

Authority

Priority Routes

Barking and Dagenham0.00
Barnet0.00
Bexley0.00
Brent0.00
Bromley0.33
Camden0.39
City of London0.00
Croydon0.09
Ealing0.00
Enfield0.00
Greenwich0.65
Hackney0.12
Hammersmith and Fulham0.00
Haringey0.34
Harrow0.00
Havering0.00
Hillingdon0.00
Hounslow0.64
Islington0.50
Kensington and Chelsea0.00
Kingston Upon Thames0.00
Lambeth0.24
Lewisham1.70
Merton0.00
Newham0.18
Redbridge0.00
Richmond0.00
Southwark0.82
Sutton0.00
Tower Hamlets0.00
Waltham Forest0.00
Wandsworth0.94
Westminster0.54
Totals7.48

Table 3: Implementation of Planned Bus Lanes on Priority Routes (miles)

Authority

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

Total

Barking and Dagenham0.000.000.000.00
Barnet0.000.000.000.00
Bexley0.000.000.000.00
Brent0.000.000.000.00
Bromley0.000.000.330.33
Camden0.390.000.000.39
City of London0.000.000.000.00
Croydon0.090.000.000.09
Ealing0.000.000.000.00
Enfield0.000.000.000.00
Greenwich0.650.000.000.65
Hackney0.120.000.000.12
Hammersmith and Fulham0.000.000.000.00
Haringey0.340.000.000.34
Harrow0.000.000.000.00
Havering0.000.000.000.00
Hillingdon0.000.000.000.00
Hounslow0.400.240.000.64
Islington0.500.000.000.50

Table 3: Implementation of Planned Bus Lanes on Priority Routes (miles)

Authority

1997–98

1998–99

1999–00

Total

Kensington and Chelsea0.000.000.000.00
Kingston Upon Thames0.000.000.000.00
Lambeth0.000.100.140.24
Lewisham0.650.780.271.70
Merton0.000.000.000.00
Newham0.090.000.090.18
Redbridge0.000.000.000.00
Richmond0.000.000.000.00
Southwark0.200.450.170.82
Sutton0.000.000.000.00
Tower Hamlets0.000.000.000.00
Waltham Forest0.000.000.000.00
Wandsworth0.290.650.000.94
Westminster0.310.000.230.54
Total4.032.221.237.48

Note:

Where the provision of a bus lane extends over more than one year, this table treats the final year as the date introduced.