|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Targeted MDT testing|
|Prison||Tests||% pop||% +||Tests||% pop||% +||Tests||% pop||% +||Tests||% pop||% +||Tests||% pop||% +|
|(1) % pop = percentage of prisoners tested based on total of monthly population figures over twelve months; % + = percentage of tests that tested positive.|
(2) HMP Bronzefield did not open until June 2004.
(3) HMP Peterborough did not open until March 2005.
1. Information has not been provided for the total number of tests that tested positive as this can be calculated by using the percentage of positive tests and the number of tests carried out.
2. There are two types of MDTrandom and targeted. The random MDT positive rate is one of the prison service's key performance indicators. Initially, 10 per cent. of every prison's population was tested each month under the random programme, but since 1999 prisons with a population of 400 or above have tested 5 per cent. The reduced level of random testing was expected to be compensated for by an increase in targeted testing. Due to contractual obligations, some contracted out prisons have continued to test at the 10 per cent. random level.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what quantity of drugs has been detected by passive drug detection dogs since their introduction in each of the prisons in which they have been deployed. 
Maria Eagle: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Records of passive drug dog indications and subsequent drug finds are held locally, so to obtain the information required would mean consulting all prisons that are operating or have operated passive drug dogs.
Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he is considering allowing individual prisons to procure goods and services other than through the national procurement system where it can be demonstrated that better value for money is achieved in so doing. 
Maria Eagle: Acquisition of goods and services in the Prison Service is now undertaken by procurement professionals utilising the national procurement system as part of the process. This model has been introduced to improve value for money and allows decisions to purchase on a local basis where that makes sense. It has been designed to allow front line staff to concentrate on the core business of managing prisoners rather than being diverted by procurement activity. There are no proposals to change the current model.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what arrangements are in place (a) for staff in the National Probation Service to record relevant offender management information on the C-NOMIS database and (b) for offender information held on C-NOMIS to be transferred between the Prison Service and the National Probation Service. 
Relevant offender information held on prison NOMIS is transferred between the prison and probation service staff using a system of jointly agreed offender management forms, secure e-mail and dedicated OM mailboxes.
The newly revised and deliverable NOMIS programme, will, through its constituent projects, provide a simple read-only database, that will allow staff in the community to have access to important information from prison NOMIS in support of offender management.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effect on offender management rollout of the planned reductions in funding to the National Probation Service over the next three years. 
Mr. Hanson: Three phases of Offender Management have now been successfully rolled out. These cover offenders sentenced to Community Orders, Indeterminate sentences for Public Protection, Prolific and Priority Offenders and high/very high risk offenders in custody. An assessment will be carried out later this year of our capacity to rollout further phases.
The cognitive behavioural programmes delivered by probation areas to tackle domestic violence are accredited by an independent panel of experts. The accreditation for the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme and the Community Domestic Violence Programme requires that, in order for probation areas to deliver the programme as a component of a wider risk management system, they employ women safety workers either directly or under local partnership arrangements. A recent self-audit indicated that all probation areas were complying with this requirement.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|