Thursday 23 April 2020

What About Prisons? 2

The subject of prison and responding to the threat posed by Covid-19 has been much-debated on here of late and remains unresolved. Given that the UK government seems to be lagging behind much of Europe in relation to many aspects of the Covid-19 response, it doesn't really come as much of a surprise, but something has to happen. This from Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in the Guardian on Tuesday:-

'The UK is lagging behind Europe on coronavirus in prisons'

The director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies says our government’s approach is putting prisoners and the public at risk.

“Inaction by government on Covid-19 in UK prisons is putting not just prisoners’ lives at risk but also prison staff, and the general public,” says Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, which has just launched a Europe-wide project to collate and compare the measures taken by different governments and prison systems. “If you set out to create an institution with the express intent of concentrating and transmitting Covid-19, it would probably look much like a prison,” he adds, especially one as overcrowded as many in the UK.

Richard Coker, a leading epidemiologist and emeritus professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, agrees. He describes prisons as “epidemiological pumps”. To deal with overcrowding, prisons have been told to “cohort” – quarantine sick prisoners together. “But without proper testing,” Garside points out, “this will be putting people with ordinary colds and flu in with Covid-19 cases and risking lives.”

Cells may also be treated as households, so if one inmate develops symptoms, all occupants of that cell have to isolate together. “And some cells do not even have the facilities to wash your hands,” he adds. “Even a short sentence for a minor crime is potentially a death sentence, puts staff at ongoing risk and provides a pool of reinfection for the wider community.”

Covid-19 is certainly spreading in jails. Official Ministry of Justice figures on Monday 20 April reported infection in more than half of jails in England and Wales, with 278 prisoners having tested positive, as well as 194 staff and eight staff from Prisoner Escorting and Custody Services. But real figures will be higher. Since tests are only done on admission to hospital, and hospitalisations are a fraction of cases, the actual numbers of inmates with Covid-19 in prisons are likely to be multiples of these figures.

Moreover, confirmed deaths from coronavirus stand at 15 prisoners and one member of prison staff with two more suspected. Again, the MoJ admits these figures lag well behind reality. “The government has not approached this crisis with anything like the seriousness – or the speed – it required,” says Garside. “To have any hope of controlling Covid-19 in prisons you have to have one to a cell, and to achieve that we need to remove at least 10,000 to 15,000 prisoners from the system.”

The justice secretary, Robert Buckland, estimates that around 1,800 prisoners are particularly vulnerable to Covid-19, and had they been in the community would have been told to isolate and shield themselves for three months. “Shielding is pretty much impossible in prison but nothing is being done to prioritise their release,” says Garside.

The MoJ has begun temporarily releasing pregnant prisoners, and those in mother and baby units who do not pose a high risk of harm. But only 17 out of a potential 70 women have been released since the government announced the emergency measure three weeks ago, Buckland told MPs and peers this week. On 4 April the MoJ announced a plan to release 4,000 prisoners early on licence who were due for release in the next two months. Ten days later, just 14 prisoners had been released and after six men were released prematurely the scheme was suspended. It is expected to restart later this week.

“The whole thing suspended for a handful of minor errors. Could this make any clearer the government’s total lack of understanding of the urgency of this situation?” asks Garside. As in other essential sectors, lack of personal protective equipment has been an issue in prisons. Garside has received reports of staff having to take prisoners suspected of having Covid-19 to hospital while handcuffed to them.

About a quarter of prison staff are off sick or self-isolating, putting further pressure on the system. Justice minister, Lucy Frazer QC, told the justice select committee last week that testing of staff began over the Easter weekend and should soon become routine.

Meanwhile, visits to prisons have been halted, movement of prisoners reduced and collective activities stopped, but Garside says courts are still sending people to prison, even for relatively minor crimes like careless driving and petty drug offences.

The MoJ announced just before Easter that it is to create 500 temporary cells in the grounds of six prisons. Yet, according to Garside, this will have “almost no impact on transmission – the vast majority of prisoners will still be in overcrowded conditions”.

Some other European countries have reacted more proactively than this country to reducing the spread of Covid-19 in prisons. Hence the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies’ project to create a “knowledge base” of European responses on which all can draw. At least 12 countries are already involved and data will be released on a rolling basis from next later this week, with collation and analysis to follow. “It won’t exactly reveal best practice; nobody is doing it brilliantly. But at least better practice,” says Garside.

Austria, for instance, is deferring prison sentences shorter than three years for non-dangerous offenders, as are parts of Germany. Finland is doing the same for sentences of less than six months (and it sends far fewer people to prison to start with). Italy, which has already seen prison riots, has reduced its prison population by 6,000 in six weeks, and France by 10,000 in the last month, and Ireland has doubled temporary releases since the start of March.

“Our government must do more,” he concludes. “Drastic measures are being taken across the world with enormous consequences for liberty and economies. Millions of British citizens are in lockdown, yet our government seems unable to take some fairly modest steps to stop Covid-19 rampaging through the prison system. The justice secretary needs to demonstrate that he is up to the challenge of making these decisions. If he’s not, maybe he needs to make way for someone who is.”

Garside has worked in the field of criminal justice reform for more than 20 years. He started because he believed that criminal justice was one of the most problematic areas of society. “It is expected to deal with deep societal problems when at best it can only manage rather than resolve them, and at worst it entrenches them. Prisons are a particular interest because the conditions are so awful and so many are held unnecessarily,” he says. He has stayed in the field because “there is so much left to be done”.

So does he think this crisis will lead to positive changes in our prison service? He says he fears not, “but I hope it will show up the terrible – overcrowded, unsafe, unsanitary - conditions in our prisons”.

He adds: “And if we can release thousands of prisoners in an expedited way and the sky doesn’t fall in, then we could think about who we imprison and why, and consider different ways to sanction people. Some will always need to be contained, but prisons at the moment are a 19th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”

28 comments:

  1. https://www.thejusticegap.com/covid-19-corporal-punishment-in-the-united-kingdom/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Government must act to prevent COVID-19 becoming a medieval form of punishment, or a death sentence.

      On 20th April 2020 there were 81,347 prisoners in England and Wales. On the same date the Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland QC, told parliament’s Human Rights Committee that 13 prisoners had died with COVID-19 since the outbreak. He confirmed that 280 prisoners had tested positive, although he accepted some prisoners may not have been tested. Over half of prisons in England and Wales had confirmed cases of COVID-19.

      A stark juxtaposition exists between the release of prisoners and ‘keeping criminals off our streets’, a central tenet of the Conservative election manifesto. Measures to address COVID-19 in prisons through release are therefore minimal. The Government will likely rely on plans for the more socially palatable but largely untested and inadequate options of extra accommodation and staffing. This is partly because early and temporary release are completely unacceptable to significant portions of our society; instead of protecting prisoners from COVID-19, we would rather use it to punish them.

      The reality of the overuse of prison for petty, persistent and non-violent crime is often invisible in public discourse. Of those sent to prison in 2018, 69% had committed a non-violent offence and 46% were sentenced to serve six months or less (here). News articles published during the existing pandemic have generally been silent on such statistics. Some publications have sought to fuel punitive sentiment by providing commentary on the release of dangerous offenders and wholly failing to engage with the substance of the Coronavirus Restricted Temporary Release scheme (CRTR). No Category A or restricted prisoners, nor registered sex offenders or those serving sentences for terrorist offences, are eligible for release under this scheme. Those suitable for release under the CRTR scheme must already be eligible for release on temporary licence under Prison Rule 9.

      The statistics referenced above, on the regular use of prison for non-violent offences, are at odds with public opinion. The homogenisation of the prison population, frequently perpetuated in the media, gives credence to the belief that offenders are a cohort of violent individuals. Prisoners are dehumanised and ‘othered’. This perception supports traditional notions of punishment, epitomised in the adage: ‘If they can’t do the time, they shouldn’t have done the crime.’

      Putting aside moral and philosophical debates about the purpose and effects of different forms of punishment, it is well-established that the British state does not lawfully impose corporal punishment: to do so would contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, no matter the offence for which a person is serving a prison sentence.

      Some portions of society would sooner see prisoners suffer and die from COVID-19 than entertain the possibility of release of offenders who are deemed not to pose a risk to society. ‘Doing the time’ should not involve inflicting punishment by way of pandemic. This is not to suggest release of all prisoners; instead release of low-risk offenders is crucial to protect the health of the entire prison population and prison guards.

      Despite the legal prohibition on corporal punishment, if the Government continues on its current trajectory, COVID-19 will become a grotesque form of corporal punishment against serving prisoners.

      Delete
    2. So on that basis being forced to work with the infected in prisons and unnecessarily on probation could be seen as a colonialist form of slavery.

      Delete
    3. https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/life-sentence-inside-uk-prisons-during-coronavirus/

      Delete
  2. “ Inaction by government on Covid-19 in UK prisons is putting not just prisoners’ lives at risk but also prison staff, and the general public,” says Richard Garside”

    Perhaps Richard could be a bit less one sided and present the risks of releasing them too. There are risks involved in releasing a significant number of potentially infected people into the community at once, unless they will first be tested, quarantined and suitably housed on release.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fairly typical UK govt crap - hold an unreasonable ideological belief, make empty promises when that belief could be used against you but ... dither, do little or nothing, look for excuses to delay/cancel and then when action is inevitable... the benefit of the action is lost because its too late.

      PPE, testing, lockdown, support for care homes, prisoner release, guidance for probation staff, public transport staff safety, etc etc etc.

      Delete
  3. I think it's worth saying that the cohort identified for possible early release by the Government a month ago will all have been released within the next four weeks anyway. They won't all be on tag and ROTL and the prisons responsibility, they'll be discharged and expected to have immediate contact with probation services.
    It's inconceivable that a Tory Government would ever think about the early release of prisoners if there was any other option available. But even Buckland has said that with the prison population so high they haven't the room or facilities to prevent the spread of infection or isolate those with symptoms without somehow trying to trim the population.
    The Governments lack of decisive action on prisons and Covid19 so far has increased the risk of infection and the spread of the virus,both throughout the prison estate and the general public as a whole.
    The narrow parameters they've set for possible early release is a problem in itself. The six prisoners released by mistake didn't fit the criteria because they had more then two months left, not because they presented a great risk to the public. But there are many in the open prison estate that have already taken a number of ROTLs, that are released daily to do community service or even paid work. They've shown compliance to the restrictions imposed on them, but can't be considered because they have longer to serve the arbitrary two month criteria set by Government.
    It makes little sense to me to look for people to release early, but ignoring the part of the population that are already interacting with the general public, are in open conditions and demonstrated their commitment to comply with imposed conditions already. They seem a ready made group to me.
    The latest thinking on how to address the issue was reported on in yesterday's Telegraph and Daily Mail. Travel lodges and hotels could be used to house early released prisoners.
    I think that's a problamic solution and a non starter in itself. Not because of the the Daily Mails headlines of prisoners being put up in hotels at taxpayers expense. A week in a travel lodge will cost the taxpayer less then a week in prison or even Approved Premises. But again the idea is blighted by the narrow constraints of the criteria set.
    The shortest sentenced prisoners are generally the most chaotic and problematic part of the prison population, generally imprisoned because they're nuisance repeat offenders often with significant drug and substance abuse issues. I just see turning Travel Lodges into unstaffed proxy open prisons or APs for that particular cohort only spelling disaster.
    Actually, I'd like to know if the Travel Lodge was consulted before they read about it in the press?
    Ideally the solution is testing and seperation, but the space for that dosen't exist within the system. But a solution needs to be found, and quickly as the current inaction is putting both prisoners and the public at far greater risk then necessary.
    The parameters the Government have set (in my opinion) are far too narrow to allow any pragmatism, and instead of alarming the public with the notion of releasing dangerous prisoners, maybe they should be say that some of those being considered for release are in prison because they didn't pay their fines or council tax, or did something to get themselves sent to prison as a means to access services they couldn't access in the community, and some are in prison unconvicted of any crime awaiting trial.
    Whatever solution the Government come up with, (and they need one), they need to come up with it quickly and take decisive action on it urgently.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/prisons-coronavirus-uk-jails-covid-19-cases-confirmed-ministers-warning-2547390%3famp

      Delete
    2. Getafix - right again! I seem to recall either Farrar or Rees talking about initially identifying prisoners with up to 60 days' left at the JSC, so many will already be due out automatically.

      Delete
    3. Found it - and it was Lucy Frazer (so much for my power of recall):

      "Lucy Frazer: As others have said, the category that we are releasing are those within 61 days of their release, so in terms of long-term effect, the effect is minimal, because all these people would be released in the next two months or so in any event. Then they will be, as Amy mentioned, going on to their licence in the ordinary course of events, so we would expect them to be under supervision anyway."

      Minutes of Justice Committee Oral evidence: Coronavirus (covid-19): Impact on prison, probation, and court system, HC 299 Tuesday 14 April 2020

      Delete
    4. I just don't understand the constrictions of time at all.
      Prisoners are being considered for release on ROTL and tag to return to prison when they're told to do so, they're not having their sentences ended or commuted.
      Therefore I think the primary criteria for consideration for tempory release should be based on the individuals risk to the public, and their ability to comply with licence conditions and return to prison when instructed to do so.
      And I ask myself this question. Is someone serving a 5 or 6 year sentence for a non violent or sexual offence with 5 or 6 months left to serve more or less likely to comply with what's being asked of them then someone serving a 3month sentence for being a nuisance who's oly got 4weeks left to serve.
      I just see the imposition of such restrictive parameters as an obsticle to a solution.

      'Getafix

      Delete
    5. I am struggling to think of cases with a sentence of over 5 years that is not linked to violent or sexual offending. I do think there needs to be clarity on which prisoners are being considered for release as this appears to be changing on a daily basis. Some suggestions appear to ignore victim impacts and parole board decisions.

      Delete
  4. Health heads up - medical staff in the US are expressing concern about a coronavirus-related trend they think they've identified, but which has been hitherto missed because of the focus being elsewhere.

    They think they've seen a significant increase in stroke victims. A stroke is what happens when blood flow to part of the brain is interrupted. The result is oxygen deprivation to brain tissue.

    The strokes are, they think, related to infection by the coronavirus. Having already noted the presence of the virus in kidney & heart tissues its believed the virus is causing substantial clotting to occur, raising the risk of a stroke in anyone - regardless of past medical history and the presence or extent of explicit coronavirus symptomology.

    Even more reason for probation staff to be provided with protection from risk of infection, e.g. PPE, social distancing, provision of masks for clients, hand-washing, daily office cleaning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BBC.

    A 33-year-old prison officer has died after contracting coronavirus.

    Rachael Yates had worked at Usk Prison in Monmouthshire for about 18 months and died on Tuesday after becoming ill with the virus.

    Mark Fairhurst, from the Prison Officers' Association said her death "highlights the risk that our brave prison officers face on a daily basis".

    Ms Yates is the fourth member of prison staff in the UK to die after catching Covid-19, Mr Fairhurst added.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-04-23/u-k-virus-prisoner-release-plan-stalls-amid-red-tape-blunders

      Delete
    2. Very sad to hear of the death of Ms.yates she was highly thought of by the inmates, always polite and respected by many.
      She was not given enough ppe that's for sure, thus allowing it to be spread to other officers and inmates.
      The inmates with confirmed coronavirus were only given a single pair of gloves as protection. That wouldn't stop the spread of the virus.
      As for letting the inmates out and housing them safely on the outside, that's a joke. They get put into shared approved premises again with inadequate ppe. More chances to spread the virus.
      Release everyone who is no risk to society, segregate the remainders, and fully equip the staff with ppe.

      Delete
  6. Probation worker dies shortly after giving birth.


    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-23/family-grieves-for-mother-who-never-got-to-meet-baby-son-after-catching-coronavirus/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A mother who had just a few fleeting moments with her new-born baby held a picture of her son before she died in hospital with coronavirus.

      Fozia Hanif had just celebrated her 29th birthday when she started to develop symptoms and tested positive, forcing a premature birth of her boy, Ayaan, on April 2. Just six days later, Fozia’s family was told to come to Birmingham Heartlands Hospital to say their goodbyes to the new mother who had never met her baby.

      "She was really happy, she got the baby photo they (nurses) printed out for her,” her husband of nearly seven years, Wajid Ali, told ITV News. “She was holding and say ‘look it’s our baby’ and ‘we’re going to come home soon’… that’s the last time I spoke to her.”

      Fozia, who worked at the probation service in a magistrate' court, had been going to hospital for check-ups during her pregnancy. She developed a slight fever in March and hospital staff decided to keep her in for tests despite only showing mild symptoms. She tested positive for coronavirus but was soon released back home. But her condition quickly began to deteriorate, and she was back in hospital and on a ventilator and isolated from her family, who were last all together on her birthday, March 18.

      “From a joyous occasion, the next time we saw her she was struggling on a ventilator,” said her father Nabil Hanif. "It was a painful experience when we walked into the hospital when they said they were going to turn the machine off and the ventilators and I said 'no, don’t turn it off until we arrive. She’s a fighter, she can pull through'. "But when we walked in and we saw Fozia… we just kept praying.”

      Fozia died on April 8 - six days after her son Ayaan was born just 31 weeks into her pregnancy by C-section.
      While Ayaan has tested negative, he remains in hospital. Fozia’s sister, Sophia Hanif, said she would receive texts telling her how excited she was to finally meet her baby. “She was messaging us saying ‘oh I haven’t seen the baby yet’ and I said ‘don’t worry about it, when you come home you’re going to come home together and we’re all going to see him together’,” she said.

      Fozia, who died three weeks after testing positive, was in a coma when her family said farewell. Her family said they will have “so many things” to tell Ayaan - which means 'gift from God' - about his mother. “She was so wonderful, she always used to think about others she wouldn’t think about herself,” Wajid said. “Our friends don’t believe it… she was nice to everybody.”

      Sophia said her smile “could light up a room”, while her dad described her as a “superstar”. “We’re all devastated, shocked, we’re still grieving, but we’ve got each other. We’re holding each other, supporting each other. I’ve got other siblings, grandkids,” Nabil said.

      Imam Ijaz Ahmad Shaami said: "It's been a very difficult time and so hard for the families and the community especially when we lose someone so young in such tragic circumstances. We're staying strong and doing what we can to support families and reminding everyone they must stay at home."

      Local Sandwell councillor Mohammed Yaseen Hussain had also supported the family thought the ordeal. He wanted to remind the public – in particular communities who struggle to understand social distancing - to take the necessary precautions to avoid more tragic deaths.

      “Stay safe, stay indoors, a lot of our communities are not understanding and we need to wake up because these numbers will go up if we don’t take the advice,” he said.

      Her husband said they had lost a daughter last year and that Fozia never stopped missing her. “Now they are together,” he said.

      He said hospital bereavement services and coroner’s offices across the West Midlands had managed to provide support to the families of victims but are stretched by the number of people who require their help. ITV News also understands a second mother who tested positive for the virus died days after giving birth.

      Delete
    2. RIP.

      Perhaps now the @NPsBirmingham Bronze Commander will stop posting shite on Twitter and close the offices.

      Delete
  7. Dreadful news. Heart breaking. Not sure if anyone or even NAPO have made any comment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our friend @NPSBirmingham offered this:

      “Yesterday, Birmingham LDU staff lost a colleague amid this awful virus. Even more tragically, a family lost a sister, daughter, wife and brand new mum. She was smart, kind, vivacious and both a rock and a light to the folk she worked with. Everything looks a bit different today.”

      Delete
    2. ... but Tweet the day before was;

      “The only thing I’ll miss from this awful crisis is the un-probation title Bronze Commander. Figuring whether I’m more DC or Marvel helps me drop off at night.”

      A week later it’s back to bullshit;

      “First task of 4th week of lockdown was considering whether to release funds to have a soffit repainted. Second task "Hey Siri, what's a soffit?"“

      A week ago it’s fun and games;

      “All week, Birmingham management team Skype tea breaks have been enlivened by the introduction of hats. Yesterday, a sea captain went head to head with the mother of the bride and a unicorn. Anticipation bristles for the grand finale.”

      And by early this week it’s onto a new level;

      “Working from home perils - I get repeated complaints regarding how I bang away at the keyboard. If Jerry Lee Lewis had received this level of grief, rock 'n roll may never have happened.”

      .....

      Close the bloody probation offices !!!!!

      Delete
    3. All of this insensitive, trite, meaningless crap on a publicly visible authorised National Probation Service branded account, on publicly funded equipment, in work time paid for by the public, while pocketing an extra £1500 from public funds as stay-at-home money.

      Oh how the other half live it up at home playing with their social media...

      ... while honest, hardworking frontline staff are directed to attend work in unsuitable circumstances without PPE where they catch the virus. Some get sick & die.

      Delete
    4. Does anyone know if the quoted tweets have been read by or liked (or whatever wastrels do on social media) by Farrar or Rees or Flynn/Crozier or similar?

      Delete
    5. Of course they do. All the probation ‘leaders’ and directors all run around retweeting each other as if a digital pay on the back. It’s like one big sick virtual orgy you do not want to be part off.

      Delete
  8. Anyone want to book a test? Here's the list of eligible workers:

    All NHS and social care staff

    This includes:

    doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers, care workers, and other frontline health and social care staff including volunteers
    support and specialist staff required to maintain the UK’s health and social care sector
    those working as part of the health and social care supply chain, including producers and distributors of medicines, and medical and personal protective equipment

    Essential public services staff

    This includes:

    prisons, probation, courts and tribunals staff, judiciary
    religious staff
    charities and workers delivering critical frontline services
    those responsible for the management of the deceased
    journalists and broadcasters covering coronavirus or providing public service broadcasting

    Public safety and national security staff

    This includes:

    police and support staff
    Ministry of Defence civilians, contractors and armed forces personnel (those critical to the delivery of critical defence and national security outputs and critical to the response to the coronavirus pandemic)
    fire and rescue service employees (including support staff),
    National Crime Agency staff, those maintaining border security, prison and probation staff and other national security roles, including those overseas

    Transport workers

    This includes:

    those who keep the air, water, road and rail passenger and freight transport modes operating during the coronavirus response
    those working on transport systems through which supply chains pass

    Education and childcare workers

    This includes:

    support and teaching staff
    social workers
    specialist education professionals

    Critical personnel in the production and distribution of food, drink and essential goods

    This includes:

    those involved in food production, processing, distribution, sale and delivery
    those critical to the provision of other essential goods, such as medical supply chain and distribution workers, including veterinary medicine
    workers critical to the continuity of essential movement of goods

    Utilities, communication and financial services staff

    This includes:

    staff needed for essential financial services provision (including but not limited to workers in banks, building societies and financial market infrastructure)
    the oil, gas, electricity and water sectors (including sewerage)
    information technology and data infrastructure sector and primary industry supplies to continue during the coronavirus response
    essential staff working in the civil nuclear, chemicals, telecommunications (including but not limited to network operations, field engineering, call centre staff, IT and data infrastructure, 999 and 111 essential services), postal services and delivery, payments providers and waste disposal sectors

    Other workers included on the list:

    public and environmental health staff, including in government agencies and arm’s length bodies
    frontline local authority staff, including those working with vulnerable children and adults, with victims of domestic abuse, and with the homeless and rough sleepers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No thanks. This is a known to be flawed test, for a virus of which there is no guarantee you cannot catch multiple times, just so your employer can force you to work on the frontline and pretend it’s business as usual.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51491763

      Delete
  9. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/22/wednesday-morning-news-briefing-nhs-staff-get-flawed-tests/amp/

    Testing farce: PHE centres told to stop using kits

    They were announced with great fanfare. But a leaked document reveals that coronavirus tests given to thousands of NHS workers so they could return to work have been found to be flawed. The Public Health England memo warns of "degraded" performance, which means results are less reliable than was first thought. Health Editor Laura Donnelly reports that it raises the prospect that thousands of NHS nurses and doctors who were told that they were free of the virus may have been sent back to work while they were actually contagious. Chief Reporter Robert Mendick has the inside story on how Britain insisted on its own flawed test - despite offers of help from suppliers. And with the deadline fast approaching to fulfil Matt Hancock's promise of carrying out 100,000 tests per day, it has emerged NHS volunteers could be used to deliver swabs to the public. Political Editor Gordon Rayner explains how home testing kits are now expected to be part of last-ditch efforts.

    ReplyDelete