| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for raising what I agree is an important and pressing issue. I am grateful to him for continuing the bipartisan approach that we adopted when in opposition. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to brief me on the issues that he intended to raise, which has given me the opportunity to make a better-informed response. He made a thoughtful and constructive speech, and paid generous tribute to a number of organisations and individuals, which was helpful.
I welcome the opportunity to outline the Prison Service initiatives to reduce the supply of drugs and alcohol into prisons, to deter prisoners from misusing drugs and to provide treatment for substance misusers, from whatever source the abuse arises.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Act was enacted in March this year. The Prison Service is currently considering the potential costs of implementing a pilot programme of mandatory alcohol testing. It is not intended that testing for alcohol will operate on the same scale as mandatory drug testing. That is not because we do not think that it is a serious problem, but it is likely to be undertaken mainly on suspicion, with the possibility of random testing under certain circumstances--perhaps where there is a known and particular problem of alcohol misuse among prisoners released on temporary licence.
The issue about which the hon. Gentleman expressed the greatest concern was stopping the smuggling of drugs through prison visits and other means. Between 1 March 1996 and 28 February 1997, there were 2,183 incidents involving drugs in prison in which the means by which the drugs entered the prison could be determined. In 80 per cent. of those incidents, the drugs were found on visitors to prisoners. In other cases, they were brought in by prisoners or thrown over the perimeter, to be picked up at a prearranged time and place.
A great deal of energy has been devoted to improving the supervision of visits. Improvements have included the use of passive sniffer dogs--I have seen them in some establishments--which are trained to sit in front of a person carrying the drugs, blocking their way. There are clear notices at entrances and in other parts of the prison, setting out the consequences if people are intercepted and prosecuted for carrying drugs. On Thursday, I visited Feltham young offenders institute and saw how effective and clear the notices are. No one is left in any doubt that the police will be brought in and firm and swift action taken.
Other improvements include the use of locker rooms to minimise the belongings that visitors may carry into the visits. Another initiative is the use of low tables and fixed seating to make the passing of drugs more difficult. It requires a little imagination, but not much, to realise how effective that can be in certain circumstances.
Closed circuit television operates in a number of areas, as I saw in many institutions. I have seen the evidence that shows visitors passing drugs. It is often the least likely visitor who passes drugs to a family member or other prisoner he or she is visiting. The use of closed or non-contact visits for those found guilty of a drugs offence is another initiative used in some circumstances.
A pilot programme of mandatory closed and non-contact visits for any prisoner found to have misused drugs is being carefully evaluated. We are certainly prepared to consider such measures.
Most important, there has been enhanced use of intelligence about prisoners and their visitors to intercept drugs that are intended for prisoners and to detect drugs that are already in prisons.
The Prison Service must consider the competing needs of security, reducing drug supply and enabling prisoners to maintain reasonable contact with family and friends, which is a difficult balance to strike. The drugs problem could be eradicated if we eliminated all contact between prisoners and the world outside their cells. Although the hon. Member for Woking said that we may need more draconian measures, I do not think that he would think that such action would be desirable in all circumstances. We must specifically take into account the difficulties of prisoners with children who visit.
The Prison Service is in the business of assessing and managing risk, best to target available resources to the source of the greatest threat. That is the sensible way in which to deal with the problem. Governors are well aware of the possibility of drugs being thrown over perimeter walls and are under clear instructions to ensure that, as far as possible, local searching strategies deal with the possibility.
After some well-publicised incidents in the past few years, and as part of wider measures to improve security, search procedures for prisoners and visitors have improved. Particular attention is being paid to searching prisoners returning from temporary release, because that is one obvious route for drugs into prisons.
The hon. Member mentioned rub-down searches. Generally, such searches are not conducted every time a visitor enters any prison, although they are carried out in category A prisons. Visitors to prisoners are given a full rub-down search that involves a visual check of the ears, nose, mouth, hair and shoes. Professional visitors--including probation officers and lawyers and staff--from whom there is thought to be a lesser risk do not have ears, nose, mouth, hair or shoes searched.
It is self-evident that there is a greater risk of smuggling from visitors to prisoners. Under pressure from a spouse or son, many visitors will be under enormous pressure to smuggle drugs into prison, particularly if they believe that it will make life easier for their loved ones. I realise that other types of pressure can be brought to bear--such as, for example, if groups target friends or relatives outside prisons. At non-category A prisons, the level of searching is decided by the governor, depending on the risk and the category of prison. By no means will all visitors always be subject to a full rub-down search.
The hon. Member for Woking mentioned intimate searching--by which I assume that he means searching of body orifices. Such searches of visitors by prison staff is unlawful. Strip-searching of visitors is permitted, but only on the basis of reasonable cause--which the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will understand. Governors are empowered to refuse visits by close relatives and others on the grounds of security, good order and discipline, or in the interests of prevention or discouragement of crime.
The hon. Member paid proper respect to those who work in the Prison Service, but felt that perhaps attention should be paid particularly to prison officers as a source
of drugs in prison. The difficulty with such an argument is that there is not a great deal of evidence to support it. Centrally held records kept over the past four years show that no members of staff have been disciplined for involvement in drug supply in prisons.
In six cases, staff have either been dismissed or resigned because of drugs-related behaviour, but that behaviour occurred away from the prison. Seven staff members have been disciplined for bringing alcohol into prison without authority. Of those, two were dismissed and four resigned before the matter could be brought to a conclusion. Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny with absolute certainty that drug smuggling by staff occurs. The available evidence, however, does not suggest that it is a significant problem. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, or is aware of any evidence, that would take us further, I should of course be glad to receive it. The Prison Service certainly takes a most serious view of any staff involved in such activities, and the police would become involved in those circumstances.
I must say a few words about mandatory drug testing. When it was introduced, I was the Opposition spokesman with the relevant responsibility. The Labour party gave its full support to what has been an important innovation. Mandatory drug testing provides, among other things, a clearer picture of the levels of and trends in drug misuse in prison, which assists in the targeting of treatment resources and provides an indicator of where drug strategies are having success and where they need greater impetus. It is also important to send a clear message to inmates that drug misuse in prisons will not be tolerated. We must reinforce that message time and again.
In 1996-97, approximately a quarter of random mandatory drug tests proved positive, the vast majority being for cannabis. There is widespread concern, which the Government share, about the perverse incentive to switch from cannabis to more harmful drugs such as opiates which are detectable for a shorter time in a urine sample because they stay in the bloodstream for a shorter time.
The average figures for the estate as a whole conceal a great deal of variation in individual prisons. More work needs to be done on that. The Prison Service aims to learn from prisons with low levels of drug misuse and to apply successful initiatives in other establishments.
An option open to prisons under the mandatory drug testing programme is to test prisoners at random on reception. Some 550 prisoners were tested on reception in 1996-97, far fewer than under the random testing programme. Nevertheless, the percentage of samples proving positive on reception was 10 per cent. higher than in random tests across the whole prison population. That might tell us something. It suggests that imprisonment does not necessarily worsen drug misuse--perhaps even the reverse.
Research into mandatory drug testing effectiveness has been undertaken, most notably that commissioned by Oxford university and the National Addiction Centre. The Oxford research into attitudes to mandatory drug testing and wider drug misuse is being conducted at five establishments. I shall perhaps say more about that later.
A first phase of interviews was undertaken between February 1996 and April 1997. The researchers are now making return visits to the five establishments to gauge changes in attitudes and perceptions over time. The initial
findings are that mandatory drug testing is only partly successful in deterring prisoners from misusing drugs or causing them to cut down. We need to gather more evidence, and I am not sure that we have a precise picture of what is going on. I certainly mean to keep the data under review to make sure that we get things right and that we are properly informed about what action needs to be taken. The hon. Member for Woking also mentioned treatment in prisons, which we consider very important.
The Prison Service strategy cannot be about ever-tighter controls alone, although they are important. It must recognise that we need measures to reduce demand and minimise the risks to the health and bodies of individual misusers and, in the longer term, of the public.
All prisons have for some time provided detoxification, education and counselling to prisoners with substance misuse problems via the health care centre, the probation department or community drug agencies. Many have gone further, providing, for example, rehabilitation units or drug-free areas supported by voluntary testing. These are important sources of help.
Some 59 prisons are now involved in treatment. The additional cost this year is more than £6 million. Resources are being earmarked, and work is extending throughout the prison population. There are several variations, including therapeutic communities and community-linked through-care programmes. We attach great significance to all of them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned RAPT. I acknowledge the good work that it does, not just at Coldingley, but at Downview, Pentonville, Wandsworth and Norwich prisons. I had an opportunity to visit the programme in its early days at Downview. It is an impressive and effective way to deal with the difficulties.
That is just one of the many community drug agencies that the Prison Service is working with in a proper partnership approach. We aim to break the vicious circle of drug misuse, crime and imprisonment. All those agencies--and perhaps some others that we are not yet using--have a valuable contribution to make.
The ultimate objective is for all drug misusers in prison to have access to appropriate and cost-effective treatment. We had a manifesto commitment to introduce voluntary testing units so that all prisoners who feel able to do so can prove that they are drug-free. That could be an important contribution to help bring the problem under control. Officials are working on the practicalities. I expect to receive advice in the autumn, when we hope to bring the plans forward.
The drugs strategy is multi-disciplinary and multi-agency. We intend to keep it that way. I have met many of the staff involved, who play an important role in drug education, counselling and bringing together agencies and other resources to deal with the problems. We should congratulate them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |