Parliament: Prisons - Minister says prisons chief misled MPs

A HOME OFFICE minister accused the Chief Inspector of Prisons yesterday of failing to check his facts and giving "misleading" evidence to a Commons committee of MPs.

George Howarth, who represents the government in the Commons on prison issues, accused Sir David Ramsbotham of relying on "intuition" rather than hard evidence to arrive at some of his conclusions.

The minister submitted a three-page letter to the cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee, saying Sir David's evidence gave "cause for concern" and "suggested a lack of understanding of both our policy and procedures".

The criticisms are seen as an attempt to undermine the public credibility of the Chief Inspector, who made damning reports on jails, including Wormwood Scrubs in London and the Feltham young offenders' institution in Middlesex.

Sir David's insistence that the problems are caused by the failings of senior managers has made him deeply unpopular at Prison Service headquarters in London. He has two years left of his five-year contract. Mr Howarth, himself appearing before the committee, said it was entirely appropriate for the inspector of prisons in England and Wales to have independent views. "It would be quite wrong if (Sir David) were to be seen as in some way a creature of the Home Secretary or the Prison Service or Government," he said. "But I do believe it's incumbent on Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons if he puts forward conclusions to base them on evidence."

Mr Howarth was asked if the Chief Inspector had his "full confidence". He said: "I have no reason not to have confidence in Sir David, but I have every reason to believe he should use evidence to arrive at his conclus- ions rather than intuition."

Mr Howarth told the committee investigating drug use in prisons there was no evidence to support Sir David's widely reported claims of at least 10 drugs "barons" in every prison.

His claim that the Prison Service could do drug tests on inmates at 50p each using a simple "litmus" test were "simply untrue", as was the suggestion that present testing arrangements cost pounds 70 each. Litmus tests cost about pounds 6, the same as the urine analysis tests now used, although these were sometimes backed with confirmatory tests costing pounds 50.

The letter challenged comments made by the Chief Inspector in evidence to the committee, but Mr Howarth made clear he was only scratching the surface of his disagreements, saying he was covering only key issues, and not "every inaccuracy".

He told MPs: "Whenever he makes assertions that cannot be backed with evidence, I believe it to be my responsibility to challenge them and I shall continue to do so."

A spokeswoman for Sir David said: "There are always many views on the efficacy of drug treatment.

"Sir David has not yet seen the minister's evidence to the committee but looks forward to an early meeting to discuss this."