|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the total cost was of transporting (a) prisoners on remand to court and (b) sentenced prisoners from court to prison in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Hanson: This information is not available before the start of the current contracts for the escort of prisoners to and from courts in August 2004. There is no requirement for contractors to separate the costs of escorting remand and sentenced prisoners. This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost, as it would involve analysing the individual records of all prisoner movements.
Mr. Hanson: Computer games and consoles for prisoners are used as part of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, in recognition of good behaviour. All games and consoles must be approved by the prison. Prisoners are not permitted access to games with extreme violent, racist or sexually inappropriate themes or to consoles which can connect to the internet.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for how many of the additional 1,500 prison places announced on 19th June 2007 funding has been secured; and where these funded places will be. 
Mr. Hanson: Funding has been confirmed for the first 500 of the additional 1,500 places announced in June this year. These places will be provided in existing adult male prisons. The current locations are:
Kirklevington Grange, Cleveland
Isle of Wight
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of mandatory drug testing of all prisoners upon entry to custody; and what his policy is on the compatibility of such testing with human rights legislation. 
Maria Eagle: Research on the overall impact and effectiveness of mandatory drug testing (MDT) in prisons has been carried out by the Office for National Statistics and Institute of Psychiatry (2005). There are two types of MDTrandom and targeted (on reception, frequent programme, risk assessment and suspicion). The research concluded that random MDT provides a good measure of drug misuse in prisons over time. It also suggested that more reception MDT on entry to the prison system might be a better way of detecting and directing users into treatment.
Prisons have discretion to use reception MDT for one of two reasonsto assess the drug misuse problem (and identify need) coming in from both new receptions and prison transfers or to send out a clear message that drug misuse will not be tolerated. So far in 2007-08, 66 prisons have undertaken a degree of reception MDT. However, all local prisons undertake clinical health assessments on reception and indicative drug testing plays an important part in that process. Those declaring a drug problem at the point of their reception may be asked to provide a sample for a drug
screen. The result of this clinical drug test is available immediately and is used as part of a clinical substance misuse assessment, prior to the commencement of any prescribed treatment for the management of drug misuse. Not everyone with a drug problem will test positive for drugs on reception into prison. A full clinical assessment therefore is much more effective and immediate in identifying drug treatment need than on-reception MDT.
MDT is a proportionate response to the threat posed by drugs within prisons and hence compatible with human rights legislation. The particular problems arising from misuse of drugs within prisons include disorder and violence, risks to health, and the intimidation and bullying of prisoners and their families to supply drugs. This undermines the rights and freedoms of those prisoners who wish to stay away from drugs. The National Offender Management Service has a duty of care to those held in custody. The extent of MDT undertaken within a prison must be maintained at a level proportionate to the problem experienced with drugs. Prisoners must not be subjected needlessly to drug tests. MDT is compatible with the Human Rights Act as long as it is proportionate and carried out in accordance with the policy and procedures laid down in Prison Service Order 3601. Despite some attempts by prisoners to challenge MDT at the European Court of Human Rights, none has progressed beyond the admissibility stage.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was spent in each prison on translation and interpretation services in the last year for which figures are available in the prison estate; and if he will make a statement. 
Maria Eagle: This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost as it would involve collating the data from 142 prisons individually. Each of the 142 prisons would have to analyse the cost of interpreters or translators which is not kept in a discrete accounting code. Serving prisoners may also volunteer to act as interpreters or translators.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persons have been (a) prosecuted and (b) sentenced for offences relating to the dealing of crack cocaine in each of the last 10 years in (i) England, (ii) the north-east and (iii) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. 
Maria Eagle: Data showing the number of defendants prosecuted and sentenced for offences relating to the dealing of cocaine in England, the north-east and Cleveland police force area from 1996 to 2005 are shown in the following table. My Department are not able to provide data for the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency as the data are not held at the required level. Data for 2006 will be available shortly.
|Number of defendants proceeded against and sentenced to selected offences relating to cocaine, in England, the North East and Cleveland police force area, 1996 to 2005( 1,2,3,4,5)|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.|
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(3) The sentenced column may exceed those proceeded against, as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty and committed for sentence at the crown court may be sentenced in the following year.
(4) The following offences have been used in the table:
(a) Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug, (or being concerned in): Cocaine. (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec 4(3) [Class 'A1 Drug].
(b) Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply:-Cocaine. (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Sec 5(3) [Class 'A1 Drug].
(5) Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.
Maria Eagle: The following table lists the number of incidents at height reported, on the incident reporting system (IRS), at HMYOI Stoke Heath in each of the last five years. For the purposes of the collection of data, an incident at height includes not only climbing on to roofs but also climbing on to or up other areas, both internally and externally.
|Incidents at Height HMYOI Stoke Heath|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|