|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I remind him that my Question is concerned with a report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Her Majesty's Prison Featherstone. Many of us have been reassured by the generally positive message contained in that report. Is the noble Lord aware that 96 per cent. of the staff of Featherstone, according to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, felt that the level of drug misuse in that establishment was either fairly or very high? Does the Minister agree that that is a very disturbing figure? Specifically what can be done to deal with that situation?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the level of drug misuse at Featherstone was higher than at most other establishments. I believe that at Featherstone the figure was 40 per cent. whereas at most establishments the figure was 20 per cent. I thank the noble Lord for referring to the good things that are taking place at Featherstone, for example the efficient running of the prison, the range of training provided, the level of healthcare and the good staff relationships at that establishment.
Referring to the noble Lord's comments on the chief inspector's claims, a good number of these are based on anecdotal evidence and not hard evidence. The independent research commissioned by the Prison Service in 1996 does not support the claim that widespread switching between soft drugs and hard drugs is taking place. Many of the recommendations that have been made are being implemented at Featherstone. The problem of drug misuse is being taken very seriously. Extra staff are being trained to deal with it. Special training is being given to staff. Special provision is being made for voluntary testing, including the setting up of a unit. HMP Featherstone and its governor are treating drug misuse very seriously.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in offering congratulations to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on his report. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that the report is generally positive about the prison. It says that it is a good Category C establishment, with a sound industrial base and good relations between staff and prisoners. If that is the case, why are the Government cutting funding to that prison by some £600,000?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that may be so, but we have to look at expenditure at all prison establishments. It would not be right to look at Featherstone in isolation. What is more important is what is being done at Featherstone, particularly in relation to the drug problem. As I said, it is setting up a multi-discipline team of officers to look at the problem. It has participated in projects in relation to drug information leaflets. It has issued information to prisoners. It is taking the matter extremely seriously. If there is any cut-back in expenditure in the prison, I do not believe that it will affect the effectiveness of this programme in relation to drug misuse.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, indeed they are. The use of dogs is taken seriously. At present 168 dogs are being used in prisons. In addition to those, as the noble Baroness will be aware, passive dogs are also being used. They are good at indicating whether visitors to prisons have drugs. Prisons, including Featherstone, are co-operating among themselves in the use of those dogs. We find that they are a useful instrument.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is not passive in the sense that it would attack, but in the sense that it is trained to detect whether people visiting the prisons are carrying drugs. That is what they are used for. In
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, do prison governors have discretion about whether or not to invite police to prosecute serious cases of drug misuse? How many successful police prosecutions have been brought, according to the latest available figures?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the Minister worried that, despite the evidence of the recent Home Office research study that mandatory drug testing resulted in some reduction in the level of drug misuse at the four prisons where the study was undertaken, nevertheless, the levels were still extraordinarily high? Has the Minister no further advice to give the House on how that is to be tackled, other than by the use of these multi-discipline teams that he mentioned? For example, could not the Government consider having separate drug-free prisons to which inmates could go if they undertook never to use drugs, so that they would be separated from the harmful influence of those who try to persuade them to indulge in those bad habits?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. If people agree to voluntary testing, it is important that they are placed in units which are, as far as possible, comparatively drug free. Indeed, that is what I said was happening at Featherstone Prison. It is a positive result. One unit is being set up there to which people who declare for voluntary testing can go. Mandatory testing was a great success. It brought down to 20 per cent. the number of prisoners using drugs. Nevertheless we must have these other positive measures alongside it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that on an occasion such of this it is right to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the Chief Inspector of Prisons who has made a major contribution towards improving conditions in Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before we move into Committee, I wonder whether it would be helpful for the consideration of the Bill in Committee if the Minister were prepared to make a statement to clarify the speech made last week by Mr. Byers at the head teachers' conference in which he said that in future schools were to receive 100 per cent. delegation of their budgets. I ask her that because in Committee we shall be dealing with organisational committees, adjudication, school organisation plans, new schools, special schools, which were mentioned by Mr. Byers in his speech, and the activities of governing bodies.
Clearly Mr. Byers' speech was an important speech which I welcome strongly, because in effect he was saying that in future schools, whether they are called foundation schools or community schools, according to the Bill, will be given control of 100 per cent. of their budgets, and virtually be given the advantages that old grant-maintained schools had. That represents a considerable change of heart by the Government, not since they were in Opposition, but since they were in government, because the Bill is not drafted along those lines. It is drafted on the assumption that LEAs will still have a considerable role to play.
It is clear from Mr. Byers' speech last week that the LEAs' role will be residual. I happen to welcome that strongly. I do not revel in the fact that it is a 100 per cent. change by the Labour Party. It voted against those measures when I introduced them in 1988 and it has been opposed to them consistently. I do not revel in that. I welcome the fact that it has accepted it. It would be immodest of me to suggest that it must have read a speech that I made two years ago, recommending that. I am sure that it never passed over its desk, but, nonetheless, the Government have reached the right conclusion. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to clarify the details: how much will be left to LEAs; and how much will be delegated. I suspect that on this side of the House we shall want as much as possible to be delegated. We want the schools to be in charge of their budgets. Grant-maintained schools have shown that they can produce magnificent results. The Government are almost there. Well done!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is saying that the Government have come to the right conclusion. That being so, could not we discuss this matter when we reach the appropriate amendments?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page