---

Prisoners (Drugs)

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned into the supply of illegal drugs to prison inmates by prison staff; and what plans he has to make a further evaluation of the extent of such smuggling and to adopt policies to reduce its occurrence. [29680]

Miss Widdecombe: 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 from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 22 May 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about research which has been commissioned into the supply of illegal drugs to prisoners by prison staff; for further evaluation of the extent of such smuggling; and the policies which have been adopted to reduce its occurrence.
Centrally-held records show that no members of staff have been disciplined for trafficking in drugs since the introduction of the new Prison Service Code of Conduct and Discipline in July 1993. No research has been commissioned into the smuggling of drugs by staff and there are no plans to undertake any. Governors have the discretion to search staff on entry to the prison. Staff searches should also be a part of local searching strategies.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 10 May, Official Report, column 306, (i) how many prisoners were tested for drugs in each month since February 1995; [29873]

(2) how many prisoners have tested positive for each type of drug, in each month since February 1995. [29819]

Miss Widdecombe: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 May 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisoners tested for drugs and the numbers tested positive for each drug in each month since February 1995.
Tables setting out the number of tests conducted each month (Table A) and the numbers tested positive for each drug (Table B) under the random testing programme are attached. Results for other forms of mandatory drug testing are not yet centrally collated.

22 May 1996 : Column: 243

Table A: Mandatory drug testing random testing programme: numbers tested February 1995 to February 1996

Month	Number tested
1995
February	207
March	319
April	324
May	239
June	342
July	317
August	191
September	521
October	717
November	1,254
December	1,698
1996
January	2,316
February	3,304
Total	11,749




Checking of statistical returns for January and February 1996 has revealed a number of errors. Error checking continues and this data must be regarded as provisional.

22 May 1996 : Column: 244

22 May 1996 : Column: 243

Table B: Mandatory drug testing random programme: prisoners tested positive for each type of drug February 1995 to February 1996

Month	Cannabis	Opiates	Cocaine	Amphetamines	Benzodiazepines	Methadone	Barbiturates	LSD
1995
February	70	5	0	0	3	0	0	0
March	111	5	1	0	5	0	0	0
April	106	14	1	0	12	1	1	0
May	75	8	1	0	2	0	0	0
June	95	11	0	0	7	0	0	0
July	110	11	2	0	6	0	0	0
August	53	2	0	0	2	0	0	0
September	142	36	8	0	18	0	0	0
October	242	66	7	0	29	4	0	0
November	236	58	1	1	22	0	0	0
December	273	74	6	1	30	3	0	0
1996
January	618	148	5	0	60	5	0	0
February	791	178	6	5	82	2	2	0
Total	2,922	616	33	7	278	12	3	0




Because prisoners may test positive for more than one drug, the total number of drug positive is greater than the number of prisoners found positive. Checking of statistical returns for January and February 1996 has revealed a number of errors. Error checking continues and this data must be regarded as provisional.

22 May 1996 : Column: 243

Preston Prison

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what maintenance and modernisation work is to be deferred at Her Majesty's prison, Preston as a result of the reduction in the prison maintenance budget. [29758]

Miss Widdecome: 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 from Mr. Richard Tilt to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 May 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about deferred work at Preston prison.
The maintenance fund for routine work at Preston prison has increased by 91 per cent this year from £91,266 in 1995/6 to £175,000 in the current financial year.
The only work to be deferred at this stage is the planned refurbishment of C wing which will now probably take place in 1997 instead of 1996 as originally planned.

Mr. Patrick Kelly

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Patrick Kelly was transferred from the United Kingdom to a prison in the Republic of Ireland; how many years of his original 25-year sentence remains; what assessment he has made

22 May 1996 : Column: 244

of the financial implications for the United Kingdom of Mr. Kelly's detention in an Irish prison; and if he will make a statement. [29904]

Miss Widdecombe: Patrick Kelly was repatriated to the Republic of Ireland on Tuesday 14 May. Including time spent on remand before sentence, Mr. Kelly has completed three years and six months of his 25-year sentence. No assessment has been made of the financial implications for the United Kingdom of Mr. Kelly's detention in an Irish prison since these costs fall to the Irish authorities.

Prisons (Assaults)

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of assaults, (a) by prisoners on prison officers, and (b) by prisoners on prisoners at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster during the financial year 1995-96; and what were the average rates for its public sector equivalent comparator group. [29820]

Miss Widdecombe: 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.

22 May 1996 : Column: 245

Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 May 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the number of assaults at Doncaster prison during the financial year 1995-96 and the average rates for its public sector equivalent comparator group.

As I stated in my reply of 23 April (col. 90), a report has been commissioned from consultants Coopers and Lybrand to assess the relative costs and performance of contractually managed prisons against comparable establishments in the public sector during 1994/5. This report will be published soon and I will write to you, following publication, with information on the periods mentioned in your Questions.

Durham Prison

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the governor of Her Majesty's prison, Durham is debarred from tendering for the courts and escorts service for the area covered by Durham prison in July 1997. [29855]

Miss Widdecombe: 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 from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 22 May 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking why the governor at Durham prison has not been allowed to tender for the provision of the court and escort services for the area covered by Durham prison in July 1997.
Invitations to tender for the work--which covers the north of England rather than just the Durham area--were issued at the end of April. It is intended to award the contract in October or November this year and for phased implementation to commence in April 1997.
The contract will cover work currently undertaken both by the police and the Prison Service. It involves taking prisoners to and from court and their custody while at court. It does not constitute a part of the core duties and responsibilities of either police or prison officers, however, and has in the past often either been under resourced or has drawn valuable and highly trained personnel away from their core tasks. Contracting-out the work has led to higher standards of service to the courts and to lower costs.
In-house bids are time consuming and costly to mount, and would therefore only be undertaken if there was a reasonable prospect of achieving better value for money than contracting-out. This would be difficult to achieve in the case of court escorts. The geographic make-up of the contract area is intended both to stimulate and maintain private sector interest and offer the potential for economies of scale. Durham prison could therefore neither bid solely for its own catchment area nor the work that it currently performs. Any proposal would also need to incorporate police input to the activity.
In view of all these considerations, the decision was taken at the outset to exclude in-house bids and to contract out the work.

---