Search Results

1-20 of 45 results for subject:Self-harm

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) suicides, (b) attempted suicides and (c) cases of self-harm there have been in young offender institutions in each of the last five years.

Asked by

Ashok Kumar (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

1 November 2006

For answer on

6 November 2006

Answered on

7 November 2006

The information requested with respect to apparent self-inflicted deaths is shown in table 1.There is no definition of what constitutes an attempted suicide, as it is very difficult to measure suicidal intent.The information requested with respect to recorded incidents of self-harm is shown in the table 2.

Table 1: Self-inflicted deaths
	Number
2001	7
2002	5
2003	3
2004	4
2005	9
Note:
The table above shows the number of apparent self-inflicted deaths. This includes all deaths where it appears the individual acted specifically to take their own life, not only those that received a suicide or open verdict at inquest.

Table 2: Incidents of self-harm
	Number
2001	800
2002	900
2003	1,600
2004	1,800
2005	1,900
Note:
The system for recording incidents in prisons (IRS) copes with large volumes of data and is constantly being updated. As numbers of self-harm incidents cannot therefore be treated as absolute the figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. Additionally, a new form for reporting self-harm (F213SH) was introduced in December 2002. The rise in reported self-harm from 2003 may therefore partly reflect improved reporting rather than an actual increase in self-harm incidents. Self harm from one prison which re-rolled to a YOI in 2003 has been included for the whole period.

Date

7 November 2006

Reference

451 c1438-9W; 99904

House

House of Commons

Prisons

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place in (a) prisons and (b) other custodial institutions to prevent self harm and suicide being committed by inmates; when he last reviewed such provisions; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Greg Knight (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

24 October 2006

For answer on

30 October 2006

Answered on

31 October 2006

[holding answer 30 October 2006]: Prison Service Order 2700 (current version issued in November 2002) sets out the procedures for suicide prevention and self-harm management in the Prison Service in England and Wales. This is available on the internet at http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/PSO_2700_suicide_and_self_harm_prevention.doc. PSO 2700 is currently being revised to incorporate learning from the Safer Locals Programme (2001-05), learning from death in custody investigation reports, and recent safer custody initiatives, including the introduction of ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody & Teamwork—the new care-planning system for at-risk prisoners). The revised PSO is planned to be issued in 2007.Detention Services within immigration have traditionally adopted similar suicide/self-harm prevention strategies to the Prison Service, and are currently implementing a version of the ACCT system.Each facility within the secure psychiatric services estate has its own self-harm and suicide prevention policies, which are informed by guidance issued by the National Institute for Mental Health in 2003, ““Preventing Suicide: A Toolkit for Mental Health Services.””Youth Justice Board (YJB) contracts with Secure Children's Homes (SCHs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs) stipulate that risks of self-harm and suicide must be treated seriously and responded to. The YJB monitors Suicide and Self Harm (SASH) plans and policies to ensure they are reviewed and updated. Custodial staff are expected to demonstrate an understanding of SASH policies and practices, that SASH review meetings are programmed and that risks of self-harm are considered during the initial assessment stage following admission and in every subsequent review and planning meeting. The Commission of Social Care Inspectorate (CSCI) carries out announced and unannounced inspections each year to monitor how SCHs and STCs are adhering to statutory regulations and national minimum standards issued by the Department of Health.Guidance relating to the risk of self-harm and suicide posed by individuals detained in police custody is contained in the ““Guidance on the Safer Detention and Handling of Persons,”” which was published on 8 February 2006.

Date

31 October 2006

Reference

97623; 451 c397W

House

House of Commons

Prisons

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of self-harm incidents in each prison occurred amongst (a) those on remand, (b) convicted inmates and (c) immigration detainees in each of the last 10 years.

Asked by

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

14 March 2006

For answer on

16 March 2006

Answered on

2 October 2006

The information requested is provided in the following tables.

Table 1: Percentage of recorded self harm incidents involving remand and convicted-unsentenced prisoners in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison
Prison	Status	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Altcourse	Convicted	—	—	27	17	17	7	17	11
	Remand	—	—	29	51	25	36	27	17
Ashfield	Convicted	—	—	—	50	12	15	7	4
	Remand	—	—	—	0	36	32	10	29
Bedford	Convicted	22	18	25	31	41	21	20	18
	Remand	56	9	25	37	22	33	28	28
Belmarsh	Convicted	23	11	11	8	16	8	12	9
	Remand	38	47	43	33	33	48	39	28
Birmingham	Convicted	0	26	24	18	12	22	15	9
	Remand	50	32	37	14	29	27	30	29
Blakenhurst	Convicted	5	10	16	28	19	19	19	10
	Remand	54	33	14	17	45	28	19	21
Brinsford	Convicted	22	26	14	19	28	40	20	14
	Remand	22	47	39	40	38	20	39	34
Bristol	Convicted	0	17	15	11	21	25	37	21
	Remand	33	47	51	33	25	25	27	46
Brixton	Convicted	22	17	18	15	14	26	27	10
	Remand	39	30	30	27	27	16	20	11
Brockhill	Convicted	—	6	29	19	27	18	20	38
	Remand	—	75	42	38	28	22	30	27
Bronzefield	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Bullingdon	Convicted	0	15	4	14	25	6	14	4
	Remand	43	23	28	38	18	21	21	7
Camp Hill	Convicted	0	13	17	0	0	0	0	0
	Remand	17	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canterbury	Convicted	22	29	15	23	4	15	4	0
	Remand	44	29	54	41	63	19	26	0
Cardiff	Convicted	0	25	23	20	25	24	23	23
	Remand	67	25	32	33	56	32	18	21
Castington	Convicted	—	0	0	3	13	9	14	9
	Remand	—	0	0	20	20	37	24	26
Chelmsford	Convicted	14	6	38	33	13	18	17	20
	Remand	43	53	38	33	56	27	33	27
Cookham Wood	Remand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dartmoor	Remand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Doncaster	Convicted	20	33	9	10	20	12	9	18
	Remand	73	33	33	39	33	33	25	28
Dorchester	Convicted	20	50	23	35	50	33	29	19
	Remand	80	50	46	18	50	11	14	19
Dovegate	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	0	0	0
Dover	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	0	9	26
Downview	Remand	0	0	0	—	—	0	0	0
Durham	Convicted	5	0	9	17	6	7	10	9
	Remand	52	43	46	24	24	12	16	15
Eastwood Park	Convicted	0	0	20	25	9	14	12	25
	Remand	25	67	0	0	12	19	6	24
Edmunds Hill	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	18
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	32
Elmley	Convicted	20	0	6	19	14	4	16	9
	Remand	0	60	56	33	28	29	16	35
Exeter	Convicted	0	11	37	17	14	22	23	16
	Remand	75	56	30	49	50	35	42	39
Featherstone	Remand	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Feltham	Convicted	12	0	27	21	27	21	31	16
	Remand	29	0	34	32	18	34	25	28
Forest Bank	Convicted	—	—	—	—	19	10	17	14
	Remand	—	—	—	—	25	22	17	16
Foston Hall	Convicted	—	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Remand	—	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
Frankland	Remand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Glen Parva	Convicted	0	11	22	22	15	15	6	23
	Remand	100	53	33	35	38	7	21	27
Gloucester	Convicted	20	—	25	14	21	33	21	18
	Remand	20	—	25	71	46	40	26	21
Haslar	Remand	—	100	100	100	75	100	40	80
High Down	Convicted	5	6	4	13	11	7	23	6
	Remand	50	0	21	34	15	21	35	15
Highpoint	Convicted	0	0	0	0	12	12	15	19
	Remand	0	0	0	0	16	20	18	14
Hindley	Convicted	25	14	0	0	20	0	3	3
	Remand	63	32	55	80	20	11	10	5
Holloway	Convicted	7	11	17	14	19	14	25	19
	Remand	57	36	37	27	26	22	24	32
Holme House	Convicted	11	11	9	33	13	0	0	27
	Remand	33	35	41	37	33	3	0	14
Hull	Convicted	7	0	15	10	10	13	17	11
	Remand	53	50	8	55	36	21	34	29
Lancaster Farms	Convicted	0	20	13	27	14	6	15	22
	Remand	0	0	42	36	27	44	30	52
Leeds	Convicted	18	27	9	29	14	12	5	10
	Remand	36	64	48	45	41	31	23	22
Leicester	Convicted	0	3	16	17	19	15	21	17
	Remand	50	42	59	51	33	33	23	24
Lewes	Convicted	33	0	17	29	11	17	21	18
	Remand	67	38	50	24	39	16	23	33
Lincoln	Convicted	0	33	8	15	20	27	19	26
	Remand	56	56	62	38	28	22	15	12
Lindholme	Remand	0	0	0	0	33	33	33	44
Liverpool	Convicted	7	0	23	5	8	18	9	6
	Remand	60	58	38	48	26	44	25	16
Long Lartin	Remand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Low Newton	Convicted	—	15	33	31	35	18	25	5
	Remand	—	46	33	38	40	9	14	7
Manchester	Convicted	25	18	22	20	12	7	13	12
	Remand	50	45	36	26	25	28	25	15
New Hall	Convicted	0	0	9	27	7	14	18	30
	Remand	100	50	24	26	21	12	14	18
Northallerton	Convicted	0	0	29	22	16	21	5	0
	Remand	100	100	42	52	56	40	16	0
Norwich	Convicted	50	5	10	12	18	9	13	9
	Remand	50	44	19	32	14	24	35	14
Nottingham	Convicted	0	13	28	29	14	17	18	21
	Remand	0	7	28	36	34	22	28	18
Onley	Convicted	0	—	—	—	0	4	17	2
	Remand	0	—	—	—	0	16	9	17
Parc	Convicted	—	25	14	10	9	7	10	12
	Remand	—	50	26	18	10	16	9	13
Parkhurst	Convicted	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
	Remand	0	0	0	0	5	4	6	3
Pentonville	Convicted	12	16	8	32	25	26	20	21
	Remand	58	50	43	35	30	35	28	29
Peterborough	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Preston	Convicted	20	17	21	29	17	13	6	5
	Remand	60	47	47	20	33	21	13	10
Reading	Convicted	0	32	19	53	29	14	7	14
	Remand	33	38	56	20	0	14	20	19
Risley	Convicted	17	0	6	6	0	0	0	0
	Remand	29	29	11	25	0	0	0	0
Rochester	Convicted	25	7	30	10	0	15	0	0
	Remand	25	14	68	73	73	65	0	0
Shrewsbury	Convicted	0	—	26	29	18	26	19	24
	Remand	0	—	26	46	26	26	50	38
Stoke Heath	Convicted	0	0	0	0	6	7	0	3
	Remand	0	0	0	0	28	21	0	5
Styal	Convicted	0	0	0	17	9	16	20	40
	Remand	0	0	0	17	42	25	21	11
Swansea	Convicted	71	18	17	10	6	15	16	12
	Remand	14	45	56	62	59	25	25	17
Wakefield	Remand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wandsworth	Convicted	4	6	15	13	26	19	21	11
	Remand	35	40	30	23	25	23	20	37
Warren Hill	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	25
Wetherby	Convicted	—	—	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Remand	—	—	0	0	0	50	0	0
Winchester	Convicted	0	0	33	11	56	15	7	13
	Remand	73	29	17	56	25	29	19	13
Wolds	Convicted	17	5	23	17	21	24	10	0
	Remand	50	55	43	40	21	18	38	0
Woodhill	Convicted	0	0	25	13	33	11	0	21
	Remand	100	75	25	25	33	32	50	7
Wormwood Scrubs	Convicted	4	9	10	15	11	11	11	6
	Remand	52	53	26	18	32	30	24	6

The following table details the actual numbers of self harm incidents.

Table 2: Number of recorded self harm incidents involving remand and convicted-unsentenced prisoners in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison
Prison	Status	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Altcourse	Convicted	—	—	38	13	19	10	16	18	19	16
	Remand	—	—	42	40	27	51	25	28	38	35
Ashfield	Convicted	—	—	—	1	15	28	15	11	2	10
	Remand	—	—	—	—	47	58	20	78	22	47
Bedford	Convicted	2	4	8	11	19	15	19	22	29	10
	Remand	5	2	8	13	10	23	27	34	32	34
Belmarsh	Convicted	3	2	8	7	9	9	9	7	11	11
	Remand	5	9	33	28	19	53	29	21	44	29
Birmingham	Convicted	—	5	10	5	5	26	22	10	10	30
	Remand	1	6	15	4	12	32	46	34	21	51
Blakenhurst	Convicted	2	5	9	27	12	38	45	46	50	14
	Remand	22	17	8	17	28	56	45	95	60	39
Brinsford	Convicted	2	5	4	8	13	10	24	10	5	14
	Remand	2	9	11	17	18	5	48	24	6	11
Bristol	Convicted	—	6	6	8	29	52	57	20	18	34
	Remand	3	17	20	25	34	53	42	44	60	57
Brixton	Convicted	23	14	13	11	12	19	34	12	6	13
	Remand	41	24	22	20	23	12	26	13	15	24
Brockhill	Convicted	—	1	7	17	32	25	75	259	120	69
	Remand	—	12	10	35	33	30	112	183	183	92
Bronzefield	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	20	113
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	94	380
Bullingdon	Convicted	—	2	1	5	17	2	4	2	3	4
	Remand	3	3	7	14	12	7	6	3	8	4
Camp Hill	Convicted	—	1	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Remand	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canterbury	Convicted	2	2	2	5	1	4	1	—	—	—
	Remand	4	2	7	9	17	5	7	—	—	—
Cardiff	Convicted	—	1	12	12	4	9	9	13	32	7
	Remand	4	1	17	20	9	12	7	12	19	24
Castington	Convicted	—	—	—	2	11	8	12	8	15	20
	Remand	—	—	—	12	17	34	20	24	19	28
Chelmsford	Convicted	1	1	10	4	2	2	2	8	10	13
	Remand	3	9	10	4	9	3	4	11	15	32
Cookham Wood	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	3
Dartmoor	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Doncaster	Convicted	3	1	34	25	33	15	24	58	48	76
	Remand	11	1	131	97	53	41	66	89	120	89
Dorchester	Convicted	1	1	3	6	1	3	2	7	6	3
	Remand	4	1	6	3	1	1	1	7	7	4
Dovegate	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Dover	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	9	39	39	35
Downview	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	63
Durham	Convicted	1	—	3	10	17	32	38	47	25	33
	Remand	11	6	16	14	65	53	59	82	55	123
Eastwood Park	Convicted	—	—	1	3	3	30	40	201	296	684
	Remand	1	2	—	—	4	41	22	186	303	866
Edmunds Hill	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	28	42	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	50	58	—
Elmley	Convicted	2	—	1	4	4	1	3	2	9	13
	Remand	—	6	10	7	8	8	3	8	32	61
Exeter	Convicted	—	1	10	8	5	18	11	5	11	21
	Remand	9	5	8	23	18	29	20	12	19	31
Featherstone	Remand	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Feltham	Convicted	7	—	15	7	3	11	15	16	32	27
	Remand	17	—	19	11	2	18	12	28	64	63
Forest Bank	Convicted	—	—	—	—	21	14	41	30	40	16
	Remand	—	—	—	—	27	31	41	35	46	64
Foston Hall	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	51
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	167
Frankland	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1
Glen Parva	Convicted	—	4	12	13	11	11	4	46	49	40
	Remand	1	19	18	21	28	5	15	54	55	34
Gloucester	Convicted	1	—	1	1	5	10	9	18	31	26
	Remand	1	—	1	5	11	12	11	21	24	24
Haslar	Remand	—	2	5	2	3	5	2	4	3	2
High Down	Convicted	1	1	1	8	8	6	17	7	12	13
	Remand	10	—	5	21	11	19	26	17	49	46
Highpoint	Convicted	—	—	—	—	15	28	31	27	—	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	19	48	38	20	—	—
Hindley	Convicted	2	3	—	—	1	—	1	2	1	4
	Remand	5	7	6	4	1	1	3	4	4	12
Holloway	Convicted	1	9	17	17	46	83	229	181	198	100
	Remand	8	29	37	32	64	130	217	305	220	467
Holme House	Convicted	2	4	2	10	4	—	—	16	8	8
	Remand	6	13	9	11	10	3	—	8	14	20
Hull	Convicted	1	—	2	2	11	19	24	17	19	11
	Remand	8	4	1	11	39	30	49	44	29	28
Lancaster Farms	Convicted	—	1	4	6	3	1	3	5	2	10
	Remand	—	—	13	8	6	8	6	12	1	12
Leeds	Convicted	2	3	4	9	5	7	4	31	42	36
	Remand	4	7	21	14	15	18	18	71	81	45
Leicester	Convicted	—	1	5	10	23	43	44	22	32	29
	Remand	4	13	19	30	39	93	48	31	50	45
Lewes	Convicted	1	—	1	6	3	13	32	23	24	17
	Remand	2	3	3	5	11	12	36	42	32	37
Lincoln	Convicted	—	3	1	4	12	53	33	32	28	14
	Remand	5	5	8	10	17	42	26	15	31	26
Lindholme	Remand	—	—	—	—	2	1	2	4	3	—
Liverpool	Convicted	1	—	3	1	3	14	28	22	26	18
	Remand	9	7	5	10	10	34	78	61	54	32
Long Lartin	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	1
Low Newton	Convicted	—	2	6	4	7	20	71	20	52	67
	Remand	—	6	6	5	8	10	41	29	46	50
Manchester	Convicted	8	6	10	11	7	18	26	40	22	35
	Remand	16	15	16	14	15	70	49	49	33	41
New Hall	Convicted	—	—	3	33	8	46	65	510	250	101
	Remand	1	1	8	32	26	39	51	301	235	166
Northallerton	Convicted	—	—	7	5	5	11	1	—	—	—
	Remand	1	3	10	12	18	21	3	—	—	—
Norwich	Convicted	3	3	7	7	20	14	27	19	23	17
	Remand	3	24	14	19	15	38	71	29	34	22
Nottingham	Convicted	—	2	9	17	9	10	22	37	32	15
	Remand	—	1	9	21	22	13	34	31	30	10
Onley	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	3	24	4	—	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	12	12	34	1	—
Parc	Convicted	—	1	16	19	10	10	20	39	34	42
	Remand	—	2	29	34	11	22	18	43	32	35
Parkhurst	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	—	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	1	3	8	6	15	17
Pentonville	Convicted	3	6	6	30	53	41	30	39	21	44
	Remand	15	19	32	33	62	55	43	54	25	79
Peterborough	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	80
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	237
Preston	Convicted	1	9	19	16	20	12	5	7	9	19
	Remand	3	25	43	11	39	19	10	14	5	35
Reading	Convicted	—	12	7	8	2	3	1	3	3	11
	Remand	2	14	20	3	—	3	3	4	7	14
Risley	Convicted	4	—	1	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
	Remand	7	2	2	4	—	—	—	—	—	—
Rochester	Convicted	1	1	11	3	—	12	—	—	—	—
	Remand	1	2	25	22	24	51	—	—	—	—
Shrewsbury	Convicted	—	—	8	10	6	10	6	9	7	15
	Remand	—	—	8	16	9	10	16	14	21	11
Stoke Heath	Convicted	—	—	—	—	1	2	—	5	9	13
	Remand	—	—	—	—	5	6	—	8	24	31
Styal	Convicted	—	—	—	1	6	28	24	149	117	210
	Remand	—	—	—	1	27	44	25	42	127	272
Swansea	Convicted	5	2	3	2	1	3	5	7	4	12
	Remand	1	5	10	13	10	5	8	10	13	17
Wakefield	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Wandsworth	Convicted	1	2	10	13	31	18	17	6	19	12
	Remand	8	14	20	22	30	22	16	20	70	14
Warren Hill	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	3	7
Wetherby	Convicted	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	4
	Remand	—	—	—	—	—	10	—	—	—	15
Winchester	Convicted	—	—	2	1	9	5	13	38	28	36
	Remand	11	4	1	5	4	10	33	39	41	50
Wolds	Convicted	1	2	14	8	11	20	5	—	—	—
	Remand	3	24	26	19	11	15	19	—	—	—
Woodhill	Convicted	—	—	1	2	1	2	—	6	4	17
	Remand	4	3	1	4	1	6	1	2	8	43
Wormwood Scrubs	Convicted	1	4	8	10	4	12	12	11	15	9
	Remand	12	24	21	12	12	34	26	12	54	21

Table 3: Number of self harm incidents involving prisoners with immigration detainee status in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison
Prison	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Altcourse	—	—	—	1	—	—	2	—	1	—
Ashfield	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1
Bedford	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	1
Belmarsh	—	—	1	2	—	4	6	4	1	6
Birmingham	—	—	—	—	3	2	1	3	—	4
Blakenhurst	—	—	—	—	—	1	1	1	—	1
Brinsford	—	—	—	—	—	—	4	—	2	—
Bristol	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	1	1	—
Brixton	3	12	—	7	—	2	3	3	—	—
Brockhill	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	5
Buckley Hall	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	—
Bullingdon	—	1	—	1	—	—	1	—	—	—
Castington	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	3
Chelmsford	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	—
Doncaster	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	2
Dorchester	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Dover	—	—	—	—	—	—	9	41	39	35
Durham	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	3
Elmley	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	3	1
Exeter	—	—	—	—	1	—	—	—	—	—
Feltham	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	2	5	1
Forest Bank	—	—	—	—	—	1	1	3	3	—
Glen Parva	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	6	3	—
Gloucester	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1
Haslar	—	2	5	2	4	5	2	4	3	2
High Down	—	—	—	—	—	2	—	2	4	22
Holloway	—	2	—	—	2	1	7	5	1	1
Hull	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	3	—	—
Lancaster Farms	—	—	—	—	—	1	2	1	—	—
Leeds	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	4	—
Leicester	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	2	—	3
Lincoln	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	—
Lindholme	—	—	—	—	2	1	2	4	3	—
Littlehey	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1
Liverpool	—	—	—	—	—	7	21	8	3	—
Long Lartin	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1
Low Newton	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Manchester	—	2	—	—	2	1	1	1	2	—
Mount, The	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
New Hall	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2
Norwich	—	—	—	—	—	—	7	3	3
Nottingham	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2	1
Onley	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	—
Pentonville	1	1	—	—	—	—	1	3	1	2
Reading	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	1
Rochester	1	2	9	17	19	37	—	—	1	—
Stafford	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—
Styal	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	—	1
Wandsworth	—	—	—	1	2	5	—	2	9	—
Winchester	—	—	—	—	—	1	8	5	4	6
Wormwood Scrubs	—	—	—	—	—	2	6	4	8	—

Date

2 October 2006

Reference

59316; 449 c2637-52W

House

House of Commons

Prisons

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of self-harm (a) occurred and (b) gave rise to the need for resuscitation in each prison in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

Asked by

Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

23 January 2006

For answer on

30 January 2006

Answered on

2 October 2006

The number of recorded incidents of self-harm that occurred in each prison in each of the last five calendar years is shown in table A. The table includes all incidents of self-harm, however serious. Some individuals are responsible for multiple incidents.The number of recorded resuscitations following self-harm incidents that occurred in each prison in each of the last five calendar years is shown in the table B.As prisoners often arrive in prison during the second half of the day, their first day in prison (Day 1) is typically less than 16 hours; some of the day is spent in the custody of PECS (Prisoner Escort and Custody Services).The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred on Day 1 in each of the last five calendar years, and where the deaths occurred, is shown in table C. The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred on a prisoner's first complete day in prison (Day 2), and the prisons in which the deaths occurred, is shown in the table D. (Please note that these figures do not include those in the 'Day 1' chart.) The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred during a prisoner's first week in prison (Days 1-7), and where the deaths occurred, is shown in the table E.The numbers and percentages of male prisoner self-inflicted deaths for each of the last five calendar years, broken down by days following reception, are shown in tables F.The numbers and percentages of female prisoner self-inflicted deaths for each of the last five calendar years, broken down by days following reception, are shown in tables G.The Government recognise that prisoners are particularly at risk of self-harm in their early period in custody, coping with issues of fear of imprisonment, detoxification and/or the impact of arrest on their family. Prisoners in early custody are therefore subject to a number of policies and practices designed to enhance their safety. These include health screening upon arrival, the use of peer supporters ('Insiders') to offer information and support to new prisoners, and First Night and Induction procedures.

Table A
Prison	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Acklington	13	14	15	28	47	77
Albany	5	7	20	69	94	36
Altcourse	110	143	93	168	166	112
Ashfield	130	185	213	286	239	168
Ashwell	—	—	1	2	7	9
Askham Grange	—	—	1	1	—	2
Aylesbury	116	12	36	22	81	112
Bedford	46	69	96	120	123	109
Belmarsh	63	109	73	74	123	87
Birmingham	41	118	150	117	97	205
Blakenhurst	97	200	237	463	322	151
Blantyre House	—	—	—	—	—	—
Blundeston	11	17	13	18	19	11
Brinsford	47	25	122	70	23	67
Bristol	134	208	155	95	156	186
Brixton	83	74	128	119	69	86
Brockhill	118	138	377	674	475	274
Bronzefield	—	—	—	—	274	829
Buckley Hall	8	22	215	765	1,082	596
Bullingdon	67	34	28	48	37	34
Bullwood Hall	49	9	17	659	1,065	1,577
Camp Hill	20	11	93	76	26	31
Canterbury	27	27	29	3	12	11
Cardiff	16	37	41	56	99	68
Castington	91	98	82	92	89	92
Channings Wood	9	7	23	11	12	25
Chelmsford	19	12	13	43	70	98
Coldingley	—	2	—	—	5	—
Cookham Wood	9	29	110	158	163	196
Dartmoor	24	37	51	35	30	41
Deerbolt	11	2	11	68	59	98
Doncaster	161	125	265	318	370	334
Dorchester	2	9	6	39	62	33
Dovegate	—	19	105	153	93	162
Dover	1	2	17	43	40	34
Downview	—	1	57	184	71	349
Drake Hall	4	—	30	18	23	42
Durham	268	431	364	538	417	364
East Sutton Park	—	—	—	—	—	—
Eastwood Park	34	213	341	789	1,163	2,553
Edmunds Hill	121	239	214	140	33	29
Elmley	27	27	19	23	83	137
Erlestoke	2	—	1	5	—	4
Everthorpe	3	5	4	4	9	16
Exeter	36	82	48	31	65	107
Featherstone	9	11	10	32	18	12
Feltham	11	51	48	104	161	144
Ford	3	—	7	6	8	1
Forest Bank	108	141	248	214	257	199
Foston Hall	4	3	138	185	614	761
Frankland	37	27	29	32	105	180
Full Sutton	21	38	24	50	55	142
Garth	33	6	4	14	55	50
Gartree	1	2	7	16	11	11
Glen Parva	72	74	71	197	217	228
Gloucester	24	30	43	100	87	115
Grendon	1	8	8	13	2	2
Guys Marsh	5	5	5	34	17	13
Haslar	4	5	5	5	6	2
Hatfield	2	—	1	—	—	—
Haverigg	—	—	3	9	3	11
Hewell Grange	—	—	—	—	—	—
High Down	77	90	79	112	193	114
Highpoint	121	239	214	140	33	29
Hindley	6	9	31	76	46	155
Hollesley Bay	3	10	4	5	—	—
Holloway	245	604	907	958	1,184	1,383
Holme House	30	92	94	61	96	65
Hull	109	144	144	152	178	203
Huntercombe	6	5	6	56	73	68
Kingston	2	1	1	2	11	15
Kirkham	—	2	—	2	1	3
Kirklevington	—	—	—	—	—	—
Lancaster	—	1	1	1	2	4
Lancaster Farms	22	18	20	23	15	79
Latchmere House	—	—	—	—	—	—
Leeds	37	57	78	315	388	222
Leicester	121	285	208	127	141	137
Lewes	29	75	153	128	181	126
Leyhill	1	—	2	—	1	2
Lincoln	62	195	171	120	162	140
Lindholme	7	3	6	9	13	16
Littlehey	41	58	33	48	139	127
Liverpool	40	78	309	374	339	276
Long Lartin	1	9	30	15	12	15
Low Newton	22	108	284	387	798	1,102
Lowdham Grange	9	8	3	3	16	19
Maidstone	13	20	11	9	13	24
Manchester	60	252	193	324	255	238
Moorland	90	106	103	188	100	149
Morton Hall	—	10	28	63	50	48
Mount	16	7	12	13	26	29
New Hall	124	329	357	1,689	1,125	1,021
North Sea Camp	—	—	1	1	—	1
Northallerton	32	53	19	28	56	16
Norwich	109	161	199	214	290	343
Nottingham	65	58	121	175	135	99
Onley	1	76	141	195	86	86
Oxford	—	—	—	—	—	—
Parc	107	135	204	326	250	343
Parkhurst	20	79	125	182	140	83
Pentonville	212	159	153	186	104	232
Peterborough	—	—	—	—	—	933
Portland	32	22	57	58	117	101
Preston	115	92	88	146	100	123
Ranby	9	6	9	11	7	8
Reading	6	21	15	21	39	59
Risley	8	5	23	34	31	46
Rochester	33	77	1	9	58	18
Rye Hill	—	28	33	46	147	189
Send	8	17	33	78	78	95
Shepton Mallet	10	4	3	1	6	2
Shrewsbury	39	46	35	38	67	65
Stafford	19	14	13	40	75	79
Standford Hill	—	—	—	1	—	1
Stocken	12	8	32	32	18	37
Stoke Heath	20	28	10	168	250	189
Styal	125	189	137	376	1,061	1,379
Sudbury	—	1	—	1	—	1
Swaleside	70	48	32	29	34	12
Swansea	17	20	32	62	33	62
Swinfen Hall	14	17	38	69	107	92
Thorn Cross	—	—	—	1	3	—
Usk\Prescoed	—	1	2	1	1	1
Verne	—	1	4	9	3	8
Wakefield	45	32	26	50	91	148
Wandsworth	123	94	81	54	194	54
Wayland	9	7	9	25	29	44
Wealstun	1	—	4	15	10	35
Weare	6	8	11	18	28	10
Wellingborough	10	5	7	21	23	10
Werrington	2	2	1	2	13	28
Wetherby	8	20	11	19	60	67
Whatton	—	—	—	1	8	3
Whitemoor	38	18	46	84	100	155
Winchester	16	34	177	299	260	151
Wolds	53	82	50	10	6	6
Woodhill	3	18	2	18	63	120
Wormwood Scrubs	40	112	112	190	127	108
Wymott	1	—	—	4	11	80

Table B
Prison	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Acklington	1	—	1	—	—	—
Albany	1	—	—	—	—	—
Altcourse	2	—	—	1	—	—
Ashfield	—	1	—	—	—	—
Ashwell	—	—	1	—	—	—
Aylesbury	3	1	—	—	—	—
Bedford	3	—	—	—	—	2
Belmarsh	1	2	—	—	—	2
Birmingham	—	4	3	1	1	—
Blakenhurst	1	1	4	7	5	3
Brinsford	1	—	—	—	—	1
Bristol	1	5	—	3	2	1
Brixton	—	2	2	1	2	—
Brockhill	5	12	22	44	9	2
Bronzefield	—	—	—	—	2	4
Buckley Hall	—	—	3	4	3	1
Bullingdon	—	—	1	4	—	1
Bullwood Hall	2	1	1	4	18	10
Camp Hill	—	—	1	—	—	—
Canterbury	—	1	2	—	—	—
Cardiff	—	3	—	—	—	—
Castington	3	1	3	2	1	—
Channings Wood	—	2	2	—	—	1
Chelmsford	2	2	2	1	2	1
Cookham Wood	—	—	1	1	2	—
Dartmoor	3	—	2	—	1	1
Doncaster	1	2	5	—	1	—
Dorchester	—	—	2	1	—	—
Dovegate	—	1	—	1	—	—
Dover	—	2	1	1	—	—
Downview	—	—	3	—	2	—
Durham	4	4	3	4	5	—
East Sutton Park	—	—	—	—	—	—
Eastwood Park	6	7	3	41	10	14
Edmunds Hill	3	2	3	1	1	—
Elmley	—	2	2	1	3	1
Exeter	—	1	1	—	—	1
Featherstone	—	—	—	—	—	—
Feltham	1	—	1	—	1	1
Ford	—	—	—	—	—	1
Forest Bank	—	1	—	—	—	—
Foston Hall	—	—	—	1	3	1
Frankland	1	1	—	1	5	2
Full Sutton	1	2	—	—	—	—
Garth	—	—	—	—	—	—
Gartree	—	—	—	—	—	—
Glen Parva	2	2	4	1	1	—
Gloucester	3	—	1	2	—	—
Guys Marsh	2	—	—	—	—	—
Haverigg	—	—	1	—	—	—
High Down	1	3	1	2	2	1
Highpoint	3	2	3	1	1	—
Hindley	—	—	4	—	—	—
Hollesley Bay	—	—	—	—	—	—
Holloway	5	5	9	7	10	7
Holme House	3	3	1	—	—	—
Hull	6	—	5	4	2	1
Huntercombe	—	1	—	—	—	—
Kirkham	—	1	—	—	—	—
Lancaster Farms	—	1	—	1	—	1
Leeds	1	3	3	9	—	1
Leicester	2	5	—	1	1	—
Lewes	—	12	1	1	1	—
Leyhill	—	—	1	—	—	—
Lincoln	4	1	3	1	2	3
Lindholme	—	—	—	—	1	—
Littlehey	—	—	—	—	—	—
Liverpool	2	7	5	1	3	3
Long Lartin	—	—	—	—	—	2
Low Newton	1	6	5	1	7	9
Lowdham Grange	1	—	—	—	—	—
Maidstone	—	—	—	1	1	—
Manchester	2	4	2	2	1	1
Moorland	—	1	1	2	—	—
Morton Hall	—	—	1	—	—	—
New Hall	2	3	1	3	6	—
Northallerton	1	1	—	—	—	—
Norwich	1	3	2	3	1	2
Nottingham	7	3	3	2	—	2
Onley	—	—	1	—	—	—
Parc	2	1	1	2	1	—
Parkhurst	1	—	4	2	—	—
Pentonville	2	3	—	2	—	2
Peterborough	—	—	—	—	—	13
Portland	1	—	—	—	—	1
Preston	7	1	2	3	4	4
Ranby	—	—	—	1	—	—
Reading	—	—	—	—	1	—
Risley	—	—	—	—	—	1
Rochester	—	—	—	—	—	—
Rye Hill	—	—	—	—	2	1
Shrewsbury	3	—	—	—	—	—
Stafford	—	—	1	1	—	2
Stoke Heath	3	—	—	—	2	—
Styal	—	7	2	16	12	9
Swaleside	2	1	—	1	—	—
Swansea	2	—	3	1	1	2
Swinfen Hall	—	—	—	—	—	—
Wakefield	—	—	—	—	1	—
Wandsworth	3	1	3	1	2	2
Wealstun	—	—	—	—	—	1
Wellingborough	—	—	—	—	—	—
Werrington	—	—	—	—	—	—
Wetherby	—	1	1	2	—	—
Whitemoor	2	1	—	1	—	1
Winchester	1	—	—	2	1	1
Wolds	—	—	—	—	—	—
Woodhill	2	—	1	1	—	—
Wormwood Scrubs	1	2	3	4	3	2
Wymott	—	—	—	—	—	2

Table C
Prison	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Exeter	—	—	—	—	1	—
Hull	—	—	—	—	1	—
Leicester	1	—	—	—	—	—
Liverpool	—	—	—	—	1	—
PECS	—	1	—	1	—	—
Reading	—	1	—	—	—	—
Wolds	1	—	—	—	—	—

Table D
Prison	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Bedford	—	—	1	—	—	—
Birmingham	—	1	—	—		—
Bristol	—	—	—	—	1	—
Brixton	—	1	—	—	—	1
Bullingdon	—	—	1	—	—	—
Canterbury	—	—	1	—	—	—
Durham	1	—	—	—	—	—
Gloucester	—	—	—	—	—	1
Holme House	—	—	1	—	—	—
Leeds	2	—	—	—	—	—
Lewes	1	—	—	—	—	—
Liverpool	—	—	—	—	—	2
New Hall	—	—	1	—	—	—
Norwich	1	—	—	—	—	1
Nottingham	—	1	—	—	1	—
Pentonville	—	—	—	—	1	1
Preston	1	—	—	—	1	—
Shrewsbury	1	—	—	1	1	—
Wandsworth	1	—	—	—	—	—
Winchester	1	—	—	—	—	—
Woodhill	—	—	1	—	—	1

Table E
Prison	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Altcourse	—	—	—	—	—	1
Bedford	—	—	2	—	—	—
Belmarsh	—	—	—	1	—	—
Birmingham	—	1	—	1	—	—
Blakenhurst	1	—	1	1	2	—
Brinsford	1	—	—	—	—	—
Bristol	—	—	—	1	1	—
Brixton	—	1	1	—	—	1
Brockhill	1	—	—	—	—	—
Bullingdon	—	—	2	1	—	—
Canterbury	—	—	1	—	—	—
Castington	—	—	—	1	—	—
Doncaster	3	—	—	1	—	—
Dorchester	—	—	—	—	—	1
Durham	1	—	1	—	1	1
Eastwood Park	—	1	1	—	—	—
Elmley	—	—	—	1	—	—
Exeter	—	—	—	—	1	—
Gloucester	—	—	—	—	1	2
Holloway	—	—	1	—	—	—
Holme House	—	—	1	—	—	—
Hull	—	—	—	1	1	—
Leeds	2	—	1	2	1	—
Leicester	1	—	—	1	2	1
Lewes	1	2	—	—	—	—
Liverpool	1	—	1	—	1	2
Low Newton	—	—	—	—	1	—
Manchester	—	—	—	—	1	—
New Hall	—	—	2	—	—	—
Norwich	1	—	—	—	—	1
Nottingham	1	1	—	—	3	—
PECS	—	1	—	1	—	—
Pentonville	1	—	—	—	2	2
Preston	1	1	—	2	1	—
Reading	—	1	—	—	—	—
Shrewsbury	1	—	—	1	3	—
Styal	—	—	1	—	—	—
Wandsworth	1	—	—	1	—	—
Winchester	1	—	—	—	—	—
Wolds	1	—	—	—	—	—
Woodhill	—	—	3	1	—	1

Table F
Number
Period in custody	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Day of reception into custody (day 1)	2	1	0	1	3	0
First complete day in prison custody (day 2)	9	3	5	1	5	7
First week in custody (day 1 to day 7)	19	7	14	18	21	13
First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14)	28	16	29	20	26	16
First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28)	33	23	37	27	33	27
First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91)	44	38	50	43	47	35
First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182)	54	46	60	54	53	47
First year in custody (day 1 to day 365)	61	52	61	59	66	57
Total self-inflicted deaths for year	73	67	86	80	82	74

Percentage
Period in custody	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Day of reception into custody (day 1)	3	1	0	1	4	0
First complete day in prison custody (day 2)	12	4	6	1	6	9
First week in custody (day 1 to day 7)	26	10	16	23	26	18
First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14)	38	24	34	25	32	22
First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28)	45	34	43	34	40	36
First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91)	60	57	58	54	57	47
First six months in custody (day 1 today 182)	74	69	70	68	65	64
First year in custody (day 1 to day 365)	84	78	71	74	80	77

Table G
Number
Period in custody	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Day of reception into custody (day 1)	0	1	0	0	0	0
First complete day in prison custody (day 2)	0	0	1	0	0	0
First week in custody (day 1 to day 7)	1	2	5	0	1	0
First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14)	2	2	5	2	4	0
First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28)	2	3	7	4	5	0
First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91)	5	4	7	6	9	2
First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182)	7	4	7	7	9	2
First year in custody (day 1 to day 365)	8	5	7	9	11	2
Total self-inflicted deaths for year	8	6	9	14	13	4

Percentage
Period in custody	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Day of reception into custody (day 1)	0	17	0	0	0	0
First complete day in prison custody (day 2)	0	0	11	0	0	0
First week in custody (day 1 to day 7)	13	33	56	0	8	0
First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14)	25	33	56	14	31	0
First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28)	25	50	78	29	38	0
First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91)	63	67	78	43	69	50
First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182)	88	67	78	50	69	50
First year in custody (day 1 to day 365)	100	83	78	64	85	50

Date

2 October 2006

Reference

45851; 449 c2624-38W

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the terms of reference are for his study on the causal factors of self-harm; what tendering process was undertaken to employ independent experts to conduct the study; and what his target dates for (a) completion and (b) publication of the report...

Asked by

Joan Humble (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 November 2005

For answer on

7 November 2005

Answered on

2 October 2006

The study was split into three consecutive phases, each one dependent on the successful completion of the preceding phase. Phase One, to identify precipitating factors for deliberate self-harm among soldiers, with an overall objective to provide a structured interview protocol to investigate self-harm in the military community. Phase Two, to retrospectively match each identified case with an appropriately matched control group, and Phase Three, to evaluate the extent to which risk factors and risk profiles identified in Phases One and Two could be used as a marker for deliberate self-harm.All three phases were to include military community psychiatric workers, under the direction of the Army Suicide Prevention Working Group (ASPWG), supported by suitable external subject matter expertise. The Directorate of Army Personnel Strategy commissioned the provision of external experts from research funds.The statement of requirement for Phase One of the Study and an invitation to tender for the work was sent to three independent academic experts. Only two bids were received, one from Imperial College and the other from King’s College. The bids were assessed in accordance with current MOD competitive tendering guidelines, and the contract was awarded to Imperial College.Phase One of the study began in April 2004, with an expected completion date of June 2005. However, as there were far fewer cases of deliberate self harm over the period than statistically predicted, this resulted in insufficient numbers of volunteers coming forward to be interviewed, the completion date of Phase One was extended until December 2005. Despite this extension, the numbers of those interviewed was considered to be insufficient for the purpose of the study.The results were presented to the ASPWG in December 2005 where it was decided that the study could not progress on the basis that there were too few cases of self-harm over the period to provide a credible result for Phase One. Therefore there was insufficient data to inform the subsequent Phases.A summary of the findings of Phase One was submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and presented to the Royal Society of Medicine Symposium in January. The BMJ have since declined to publish these findings, due to the size of the sample used.

Date

2 October 2006

Reference

26298; 449 c2576-7W

House

House of Commons

Custody

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-harm and abuse of children and young adults in custody have been recorded (a) in the past 12 months and (b) since 2000, broken down by sex of victim.

Asked by

Chris Ruane (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

24 July 2006

Reference

86243; 449 c1135-6W

House

House of Commons

Immigration: Suicide in Detention

How many incidents of attempted suicides have been recorded since 1 January 2002 at immigration detention centres.

Asked by

Lord Ouseley (Crossbench)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

3 July 2006

Reference

684 c8-10WA; 6595

House

House of Lords

Prisons

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the possible correlation between overcrowding and self-harm in the (a) male, (b) female and (c) juvenile prison estate; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

3 July 2006

Reference

448 c885W; 78134

House

House of Commons

Asylum/Immigration

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) suicides and (b) incidents of self-harm there have been in each immigration holding, reception and removal centre in each of the last five years.

Asked by

Grant Shapps (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 June 2006

Reference

75368; 447 c1666-8W

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate she has made of the number of children and young people who self-harm, broken down by (a) sex and (b) ethnic group.

Asked by

Brian Jenkins (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

24 May 2006

Reference

71248; 446 c1886W

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

(3) how many children were admitted to hospital following incidents of self-harm in each of the last five years.

Asked by

Tim Loughton (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 May 2006

For answer on

8 May 2006

Answered on

17 May 2006

In 2002, a survey by the Office for National Statistics of 12,000 five to 15-year-olds has found that 1.3 per cent. had tried to harm themselves. The available information on children admitted and treated in hospital is shown in the table.Total finished admission episodes and total patients for under-18s admitted to hospital due to deliberate self-harm in the past five years in NHS hospitals England, financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05.

Children admitted by data year
Children admitted by data year	Data year	Total episodes	Total patients
2004-05	11,237	9,804
2003-04	11,189	9,834
2002-03	10,189	8,762
2001-02	10,005	8,678
2000-01	9,469	8,188

Date

17 May 2006

Reference

446 c1119W; 69379

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

(2) how many children self-harmed in each of the last five years;

Asked by

Tim Loughton (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 May 2006

For answer on

8 May 2006

Answered on

17 May 2006

Children admitted by data year
Children admitted by data year	Data year	Total episodes	Total patients
2004-05	11,237	9,804
2003-04	11,189	9,834
2002-03	10,189	8,762
2001-02	10,005	8,678
2000-01	9,469	8,188

Date

17 May 2006

Reference

69378; 446 c1119W

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children have been treated in hospital for self-harm in each of the last five years;

Asked by

Tim Loughton (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 May 2006

For answer on

8 May 2006

Answered on

17 May 2006

Children admitted by data year
Children admitted by data year	Data year	Total episodes	Total patients
2004-05	11,237	9,804
2003-04	11,189	9,834
2002-03	10,189	8,762
2001-02	10,005	8,678
2000-01	9,469	8,188

Date

17 May 2006

Reference

446 c1119W; 69342

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role her Department has played in the six month trial at St. George's psychiatric hospital in Stafford into ways of treating people who self-harm; and if she will make a statement.

Asked by

Tim Loughton (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 May 2006

Reference

62270; 446 c406-7W

House

House of Commons

Self-harm

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued to hospitals on dealing with patients who self-harm on site.

Asked by

Tim Loughton (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

9 May 2006

Reference

446 c241W; 69341

House

House of Commons

Asylum Seekers: Self-harm

How many asylum seekers have attempted self-harm since 2003; and how many have been put on self-harm watch over the same period.

Asked by

Lord Ouseley (Crossbench)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

25 April 2006

Reference

681 c9WA; 5189

House

House of Lords

Immigration: Removal Centres

What conclusions they draw from the statistics of self-harm at immigration removal centres given on the Home Office website; and what is their assessment of the variation in the incidence of self-harm between the centres.

Asked by

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 April 2006

Reference

4792; 680 c182WA

House

House of Lords

Self-Harm (Prisons)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of serial self-harmers in the prison estate; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

7 March 2006

For answer on

9 March 2006

Answered on

15 March 2006

Relatively few prisoners, the vast majority of whom are female, account for most self-harm incidents across the prison estate. In 2005, 50 prisoners (1 per cent. of individuals responsible for self-harm incidents) accounted for about 25 per cent. of all reported self-harm incidents; 260 prisoners (5 per cent.) accounted for about 50 per cent. The average number of self-harm incidents per individual who has self-harmed is currently about four per year but 23 prisoners had more than 100 recorded incidents.A broad, integrated and evidence-based prisoner suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy is in place. The strategy can be summarised as, ‘Reducing distress and promoting the well being of all who live and work in prisons.' It operates by embedding ‘safer custody' as a current through every area of prison life—including detoxification, healthcare, staff training, and the built environment. The key intervention currently being introduced across public and private prisons is the new care-planning system for at-risk prisoners: Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT). ACCT aims to improve the quality of care by introducing flexible care-planning that is prisoner-centred, supported by improved staff training in assessing and understanding at-risk prisoners.Comprehensive electronic guidance to staff on managing people who self-harm has been issued; this was developed in close partnership with the Department of Health and the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) and aims to be of use to all those working with people who self-harm within a secure environment.The Prison Service has set up a network of establishments to develop interventions, facilitate evaluation and share good practice around managing prisoners who self-harm. An information leaflet about managing self-harm written by a prisoner for prisoners includes information on how to manage self-injury and how to get help within the prison context. Touch screen technology is being developed in prisons to inform prisoners of where to obtain support and how to support other prisoners.

Date

15 March 2006

Reference

57771; 443 c2313-4W;443 c2313-4W

House

House of Commons

Immigration Detention Centres

My Lords, the Government take such issues very seriously. Every Immigration Service removal centre has measures in place to help identify and monitor those who are considered to be at risk of suicide and self-harm. Since 1989, there have been 12 deaths in immigration detention; seven have been investigated by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman—one is continuing—and we consider carefully his reports and recommendations, particularly for lessons that may be learnt for the future.

Answered by

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

15 February 2006

Reference

678 c1149

House

House of Lords

Immigration Detention Centres

My Lords, I should make it plain from the start that we are concerned about this area, and of course the reports to which the noble Lord has referred are important and telling. Steps are taken to ensure that we adopt the best practice. We are working carefully with the Prison Service to ensure that when it changes its procedures to a new system we adopt that new system as well. It is regrettable that cases take a time to come to coroners’ courts, but the coroners’ courts process is very rigorous, and it is only right that due process is seen to be operating properly. It means that the issues are considered thoroughly, which is to everyone’s benefit, not least those who endure a period of time in Immigration Service detention.

Answered by

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

15 February 2006

Reference

678 c1149-50

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher

Immigration Removal Centre	Number of individuals on Formal Self-Harm at Risk 01/04/04—31/03/05	Number of incidents of self-harm requiring medical treatment in 01/04/04—31/03/05
Campsfield House	33	19
Colnbrook (opened August 2004)	95	34
Dover	72	28
Dungavel	127	1
Harmondsworth	192	39
Haslar	44	8
Lindholme	24	2
Oakington	57	15
Tinsley House	91	8
Yarl's Wood	123
Immigration Removal Centre	Number of individuals on Formal Self-Harm at Risk 01/04/05—31/03/06	Number of incidents of self-harm requiring medical treatment 01/04/05—31/03/06
Campsfield House	40	19
Colnbrook	718	91
Dover	91	28
Dungavel	110	0
Harmondsworth	482	40
Haslar	36	2
Lindholme	11	4
Oakington	75	17
Tinsley House	47	3
Yarl's Wood	196	27
Immigration Removal Centre	Number of individuals on Formal Self-Harm at Risk 01/04/06—31/05/06	Number of incidents of self-harm requiring medical treatment 01/04/06—01/05/06
Campsfield House	3	1
Colnbrook	166	18
Dover	13	8
Dungavel	12	0
Harmondsworth	103	0
Haslar	4	1
Lindholme	0	0
Oakington	8	3
Tinsley House	5	1
Yarl's Wood	45	5