§ Paul FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of (a) male and (h) female prisoners tested positive for illicit drugs in each British prison in the last year for which figures are available.[90267]
§ Hilary BennMandatory drug testing (MDT) is part of the wider Prison Service drug strategy. It was introduced with three objectives: to deter prisoners from misusing drugs through the threat of being caught and punished; to supply better information on patterns of drug misuse to improve the targeting of treatment 195W services and to measure the effectiveness of the overall strategy; and to identify individuals in need of treatment.
The table sets out the percentage of prisoners who tested positive under random mandatory drug testing MDT in the last financial year (2001–02) in each prison in England and Wales. The names of the female prisons are highlighted in italic:
196W
Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02 Establishment Percentage positive Acklington 15 Albany 0 Altcourse 10.6 Ashfield 13.7 Ashwell 12.6 Askham Grange 4.8 Aylesbury 7.9 Bedford 21.9 Belmarsh 12.7 Birmingham 16.2 Blakenhurst 27.5 Blantyre House 2.3 Blundeston 7.5 Brinsford 9.2 Bristol 15.8 Brixton 9.7 Brockhill 9.3 Buckley Hall 19.8 Bullingdon 13.2 Bullwood Hall 8 Camp Hill 13.1 Canterbury 12.9 Cardiff 20.8 Castington 7.8 Channings Wood 5.8 Chelmsford 16 Coldingley 11.7 Cookham Wood 2.2 Dartmoor 5.9 Deerbolt 9.1 Doncaster 10.5 Dorchester 22.8 Dovegate 14.9 Dover 16.6 Down View 5.2 Drake Hall 14.4 Durham 13.4 East Sutton Park 1.7 Eastwood Park 8.8 Elmley 11.9 Erlestoke 18.9 Everthorpe 13.9 Exeter 17.8 Featherstone 11.5 Feltham 13.4 Ford 7 Forestbank 18.8 Foston Hall 1.8 Frankland 7.6 Full Sutton 6 Garth 10.9 Gartree 3.9 Glen Parva 13.7 Gloucester 13.5 Grendon 3.5 Guys Marsh 21.1 Haslar 0 Hatfield 14.6 Haverigg 23.4 Hewell Grange 10.4 Highdown 12.8 Highpoint 14.2
197W
Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02 Establishment Percentage positive Hindley 13.8 Hollesley 9.9 Holloway 13.2 Holme House 11.8 Hull 8 Huntercombe 15.5 Kingston 6.4 Kirkham 18.6 Kirklevington 1 Lancaster 16.2 Lancaster Farms 3.9 Latchmere House 1.9 Leeds 15.3 Leicester 22 Lewes 31.6 Leyhill 13.8 Lincoln 9.7 Lindholme 11.9 Littlehey 7.5 Liverpool 12.4 Long Lartin 7.6 Low Newton 17.6 Lowdham Grange 7.9 Maidstone 4.1 Manchester 13.6 Moorland 3.7 Morton Hall 2.1 Mount 7.9 New Hall 6.8 North Sea Camp 14.4 Northallerton 11.5 Norwich 17.1 Nottingham 20.2 Onley 4.3 Parc 10.5 Parkhurst 6.4 Pentonville 20.7 Portland 7.3 Preston 16.5 Ranby 7.2 Reading 8.8 Risley 23.9 Rochester 3.7 Rye Hill 8.7 Send 8.3 Shepton Mallet 15.5 Shrewsbury 16.8 Spring Hill 7 Stafford 17.9 Standford Hill 10.3 Stocken 15.8 Stoke Heath 2.3 Styal 13.6 Sudbury 8.2 Swaleside 13.1 Swansea 16.1 Swinfen Hall 1.3 Thorn Cross 13 Usk/Prescoed 3.6 Verne 2 Wakefield 1 Wandsworth 8.6 Wayland 5.9 Wealstun 14.3 Weare 10.4 Wellingborough 9.7 Werrington 8 Wetherby 5.5 Whatton 1.9 Whitemoor 13.7 Winchester 20.9 Wolds 3.3 Woodhill 13.8
Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02 Establishment Percentage positive Wormwood Scrubs 17.0 Wymott 7.1 All Prisons 11.6
§ Paul FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in each of the past three years in prisons to deal with misuse of(a) illegal drugs and (b) alcohol; and what has been the cost of the monitoring of illegal drugs in prisons in each of the last three years. [90268]
§ Hilary BennThe centrally-committed funding to deal with the misuse of illegal drugs in prisons for each of the last three years is:
£ million 2000–01 26.3 2001–02 52 2002–03 61 Details of locally-committed drug funding, funding to address alcohol misuse and the costs of monitoring are not held centrally.