Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
TUESDAY 16 MAY
RT HON
PAUL BOATENG,
MR MARTIN
NAREY, MR
JOHN GLAZE
and MR MARTIN
LEE
Mr Linton
60. I shall ask some crisp questions to make
good progress, mainly on the level of drugs. Just on the last
question, Mrs Dean asked about name badges for staff on visitor
duty. Is that being progressed at the moment?
(Mr Boateng) Yes.
(Mr Narey) Yes, it is, Mr Linton. I have just issued
an instruction and we shall be introducing from summer of this
year arrangements whereby all prison officers will wear numbered
epaulettes so that they will be identifiable at all times both
to visitors and to prisoners. Other staff will wear name badges.
I was somewhat sympathetic to prison officer concerns that identifying
them might in some circumstances (I think very rarely, frankly)
bring them into some danger, but identification by numbered epaulettes
will be introduced this year.
61. We are always glad to know that you have
responded to a suggestion of ours, even if it may have been in
progress before. On the level of drug use, clearly the mandatory
drug testing has shown a very impressive decrease from nearly
21 per cent down to 14.5 per cent, although obviously that has
been all in cannabis rather than in heroin. I have three specific
questions on the levels. One is the question of interpretation
because in your response to our report you say that the Committee
may have misunderstood the results. A monthly random positive
rate of five per cent for opiates, for example, does not mean
that five per cent of prisoners have taken opiates. We certainly
were not under the impression that it did. Indeed, a positive
rate of five per cent could mean that 50 per cent of prisoners
were taking opiates once a month. It just depends on the frequency
as well as the numbers.
(Mr Boateng) Mr Linton, you are absolutely right,
the value of MDT figures is only that they provide a snapshot
of the patterns of drug misuse, they help us identify trends in
drug taking. I would say I know, and share, the Committee's concerns
to make sure that we are not simply transferring people off one
drug on to another. I do think that there is some reason, looking
at the percentage of usage in terms of what the MDT results throw
up, for a degree of cautious optimism. Although the decrease is
not as dramatic as it is relation to cannabis, 19.9 to 10.2 in
the period 1996-97 to 1999-2000, it is nevertheless a decrease
of 5.4 to 4.3. Indeed, on all of them, on benzodiazepines, there
is a decrease. If you take cocaine it was 0.2 in 1996-97 but even
in the intervening years there was some drop. I do not think that
we should succumb to the belief that there is not some evidence
of progress right the way across the scale.
62. The figures we have got show 4.2, 4.4, 4.4.
I am happy to call that static but I cannot read a decrease into
it. On the particular question of switching, the point that the
Committee made was that the relative importance of heroin and
cocaine sadly is increasing, and if you look at those results
at the beginning of the tables they are about a fifth of the positive
results and now they are close to a third simply because they
have stayed static when the others have fallen. There continues
to be a lot of evidence from prisoners of switching. You might
say they have an interest in showing that the system does not
work, I do not know. During our inquiry we found a lot of anecdotal
evidence from prisoners, and sometimes from staff, who refused
to exclude the possibility that there could be switching going
on.
(Mr Boateng) I do not think we should exclude the
possibility. I am cautious, as I have indicated, about anecdotal
evidence, nevertheless I hear what you say and it is there and
certainly those anecdotes are showing this. I am not telling any
tales out of school but whether I am or not I think it is important
that you should be aware of it, that the Director-General and
I ourselves have had some robust exchanges on this issue and in
my view for good reason, because of the very reasons the Committee
has alighted upon. I well understand those reasons and share them
with you, having heard those anecdotes from prisoners. What we
do know is that the two independent pieces of research that have
been commissioned and have come to fruition so far in this area
do not, in fact, support the contention that MDT does cause prisoners
to switch from cannabis to opiates. Because I share the Committee's
concerns in this area that we should tie this one down we are
concerned and we plan a further piece of research so we have the
best available information. I would be only too happy to send
you a note about the development in this area.[2]
63. Just one last point on this, and possibly
the harshest thing we said in our report, is that the MDT programme
has failed if it has reduced cannabis use but has had no effect
on heroin, a point that you rejected. I would like to know your
reasons. While obviously cannabis use is a very serious matter,
at the end of the day it may be that burglars do use the proceeds
of their crime on cannabis but the drugs that drive crime, that
send people back to commit burglaries time and time again, are
addictive drugs. The focus must surely be on heroin and cocaine
and the measure of success to a large extent must be the success
in reducing that.
(Mr Narey) If I may respond to that, Chairman. First
of all, although it is only one percentage point, the shift in
heroin use does show, in fact, a 20 per cent fall over the same
period that cannabis has fallen. I recollect, I think it was said
to the Committee last year, it certainly was said to me very forcefully
last time I was here, that if we were to introduce weekend testing,
and at the time of the last hearing there was no weekend testing,
MDT positives for opiates would rocket because the anecdotal evidence
given to me by prisoners was that prisoners took heroin on a Friday
night and flushed it out of their system over the weekend. We
have not yet reached 14 per cent of testing on weekends, it is
about 12 per cent, but the fall in heroin MDTs has continued.
I take more confidence in the results this year because of weekend
testing than I did last year.
64. I am glad to hear that. One point that you
did not respond to in our report was about heroin saliva tests.
We had evidence that they were a more accurate way of testing
for the presence of opiates and they lasted longer. Your response
said that you were looking at overseas experience. Is that not
a possibility?
(Mr Boateng) There are others who may know more about
this than I, but the feedback we got from our medical people was
that the range of drugs that can be tested for in saliva is more
limited than in urine and the results more difficult to interpret.
One of the strengths of MDT has been that the results have proved
robust. We all know from other fields what can happen if you begin
to have doubts and reasons to doubt the accuracy of the tests,
it can undermine the whole regime. I would be very reluctant to
abandon the urine test and even to mix it with the saliva in terms
of a testing medium because we have got a pretty robust tool now
in relation to urine testing. Indeed, such research as there is,
and I am grateful for this advice, is that the University of Strathclyde
has come up with a report that does demonstrate that urine is
still the best.
65. Let me ask you also about 100 per cent testing
because you did seem rather reluctant to go to the system of 100
per cent testing. In the case of Blantyre House you seem to have
accomplished it remarkably efficiently and quickly. Why can you
not do it elsewhere?
(Mr Boateng) I think we have demonstrated, Mr Linton,
if nothing else, that the circumstances at Blantyre House were
rather exceptional. Point taken, but not accepted.
66. Especially since you waxed eloquent about
how you have to wait up to two hours for somebody to produce a
urine sample.
(Mr Boateng) Blantyre House took five hours for 120
people. It was a major operation.
67. We felt this very strongly both in terms
of 100 per cent testing in a particular prison, which obviously
you accomplished in five hours at Blantyre House, but also in
terms of 100 per cent testing on admission. This is where difficulties
were raised about the cost of doing this. It also emerged that
there is evidence that some prisons already do this. It seems
to me if prison is to be regarded as an opportunity when society
can deal with the problem of drugs, the first requirement is for
us to know who is on drugs when they arrive in the criminal justice
system.
(Mr Boateng) There will come a time when we will have
to take a decision on this and your view clearly will help us
and inform that decision. There is an argument for 100 per cent
testing on admission and it is a very rational, reasonable, in
my view quite good argument in relation to ensuring that we identify
how best to utilise the limited resources at our disposal. It
is important to bear in mind, and we are going to have to bear
in mind, that it would cost about £9.2 million. There will
be a judgment that we are going to have to make, that I will make
with the Home Secretary, about whether or not this is the best
use of £9.2 million. That will be informed by the view of
the Director-General, by the view of Keith Hellawell and, indeed,
by the view of this Committee which you have expressed very clearly
which we will need to take on board as part of our consideration
when we make a final decision on this.
68. We are very glad to have that figure. We
queried the cost of tests quite a bit during our inquiry and you
said that studies were continuing into the relative costs. They
varied from £70 each to a few pence each. Have you any clearer
idea now of the cost of tests that underlie that figure?
(Mr Boateng) That figure is £8.6 million in terms
of staff opportunity and it is £0.6 million in terms of drug
testing kits.
69. Are these litmus tests or are they dipper
tests?
(Mr Boateng) Dipper.
(Mr Narey) If I might help on the general costs of
our random testing, I know Sir David suggested last year that
the tests we used were £70 and there was a test available
for 50p. He was mistaken and I think he has since acknowledged
that. The average cost of an MDT test which meets evidential purposes
so that we can adjudicate on those who are found positive (which
is vital to the whole strategy) for the seven drugs for which
we test is about £6 and it is as competitive as we believe
we can obtain.
Mr Linton: Fine.
Chairman
70. We were just a little puzzled, Minister,
about your reluctance on the mandatary testing of all new entrants
to the criminal justice system when we saw under the drug abstinence
orders it is going to be possible to make it a condition of release
on licence that the prisoner should undergo drug testing. You
know what we are saying—
(Mr Boateng) I do.
71. But we hear what you say in response.
(Mr Boateng) I must say, I was not present when evidence
was given last year but I think I have a sense of that evidence.
I hope you also detected a greater willingness to go down the
100 per cent testing for new entrants into the system.
72. Yes. A couple of quick questions. You did
not in the Government response give us any information on the
distinction made by governors in sentences for prisoners found
to be using cannabis or harder drugs. Was there a reason for that?
(Mr Narey) There was not a reason for that, Mr Chairman,
I am sorry we did not give one. The advice we have given to governors
is very firm and they have been following it now for a year or
more. They do make a very significant distinction between penalties
for those who have tested positive for cannabis and those who
have tested positive for opiates and other harder drugs. Generally
speaking, it is only those testing positive for harder drugs which
will get the governor's maximum award of 42 added days.
73. Yes. The report, and I am sure you will
acknowledge this, made the point, as other people have, that the
real purpose is to get rehabilitation and not punishment. Have
you yet reformulated the key performance indicator for the positive
MDT results?
(Mr Boateng) No, we have not.
Mr Fabricant
74. We have established over the last couple
of hours that there is indeed a problem and my colleague, Gerald
Howarth, mentioned the University of Surrey Report which said
that most of the prisoners who were tested had got serious hard
drug problems. What I want to move on to, if I may, in a bit more
detail is the treatment provision. One of the most important aspects
is the CARAT programme, which is the Counselling, Assessment,
Referral, Advice and Throughcare service which the Government
is supporting. I gather that 15 of the prisons are under-staffed
because of recruitment difficulties, and that really is of some
concern to the Committee. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure
us, or perhaps even worry us, as to the situation now and whether
or not we are going to see all prisons having a fully operational
CARAT programme in operation?
(Mr Boateng) It is a picture which I think will be
reassuring to the Committee, whilst at the same time recognising
that there are, as I have indicated earlier, capacity issues.
Recruitment difficulties cause delay, as I have indicated earlier,
but CARATs are now operational in all but 15 of our establishments,
the remainder will be fully staffed very shortly.
75. Could you set a target?
(Mr Boateng) I am happy to say to you that by the
end of the summer we ought to be in a position to assure the Committee
they are up and running everywhere.
76. That is fine. That is very helpful. Let
us move on because I am conscious of time and you have given a
very helpful answer there. We are concerned that the Prison Service
intends to ensure that all prisoners have access to rehabilitation
but it ought to be on need rather than just on chance, that all
the services, and this is not just CARAT, are available. Have
you made any estimate as to the number of prisons which will need
treatment programmes in the medium to long-term?
(Mr Boateng) I am acutely conscious of the need for
us to ensure in relation to the work we are doing with the NHS
and the needs assessment which arises from that, that issues around
drugs and alcohol are taken on board in terms of the health needs
assessment. I think we will be able through CARATs to reliably
assess and quantify the need. I am not able to tell you now, obviously,
what the outcome of that is likely to be, save to say that again
there is actually some good news in terms of the existing treatment
programmes which we plan, 19 of which are already fully operational,
nine partly operational, those nine and the remaining five fully
operational by September. So there is good news there and I plan
to be able to build on that.
77. Again, you were very helpful earlier on
by giving an estimate as to when you think the CARAT programme
will be fully distributed among the Prison Service. Can you give
us an estimate as to when you think you will have a better idea?
(Mr Boateng) I would hope that in giving evidence
to you next year we would be in a position then to give you a
clearer picture.
78. Let us move on to Lowdham Grange Prison
briefly. You will know it is a privately-managed prison but the
Chief Inspector was critical of the small amount that was allocated,
and it would seem it is around £7,000, and indeed, allocated
to other contract prisons run by private organisations which he
inspected. Is that coincidence or is there actually a policy to
allocate a lower proportion of funding to privately-managed prisons?
If it is policy, why?
(Mr Narey) It certainly was not policy, Mr Fabricant.
We allocated the money on the basis of need, we made no distinction
between private sector or public sector prisons. So if a particular
prison was doing quite well in terms of having something which
looked like the drug strategy, we gave rather less money to them.
In other words, we were trying to equalise provision.
79. If that is fair, why did the Chief Inspector
make his criticism? If it was done by need?
(Mr Narey) I do not know why he made the criticism
but I can promise you that it was done by need. I have only ever
discussed this particular issue with Sir David with regard to
Buckley Hall, he has not raised any concerns with me personally
on Lowdham Grange. Certainly I think the result of the investment
across the private sector estate as well as public sector prisons,
is that we have a reasonably level playing field now in terms
of provision.
(Mr Boateng) We can write to the Committee and do
you a note on Lowdham Grange[3]
if there are specific concerns there, and certainly I will get
the Chief Inspector to feed into that.
Mr Fabricant: I think that would be very helpful.
Thank you.
2 See Annex. Back
3
See Annex. Back
|
