Prison Report
Privatisation Factfile 52
Stephen Nathan June 08
TITANS ON THE WAY
The government has launched its so-called consultation process for the three proposed
‘titan’ prisons. The capacity of each prison could be between 2,500 and 3,600 and the
construction costs alone could be upward of £350 million each. They will be built to
cope with overcrowding from the start.
The Carter review recommended prisons to hold 2,500 prisoners; the private prison
industry prefers around 3,000 or more for economies of scale (for which read
profitability) and Wates/Capita even submitted a plan to Lord Carter for a 3,600 prison
complex. The first titan could be built in London by 2012 with others opening in northwest England and the West Midlands.
It is expected that the titans will be privately financed, designed, built and run. US firm
The GEO Group is optimistic about titans: on 1 May 2008 during a conference call to
discuss his company’s latest results with US investment analysts, George Zoley, GEO’s
chairman and chief executive expressed “greater hope for success” in bidding for what he
described as “the superjails”. Having not made the shortlist of bidders for Maghull or
Belmarsh West, Mr Zoley’s view was that, for smaller facilities “there’s a lot more
competition and just about anybody can be selected on any particular day.”
French construction firm Bouygues has also announced that it will be bidding for the titan
contracts. The company has built or is planning to build some 10,000 prison places in
France where the government has a new programme of privately financed semi-private
prisons (the state employs the prison officers). Bouygues’ UK business development
director, Ian Gunter, told Construction News (cnplus.co.uk): “the proposed delivery
model for the titans is more in line with the French model, so our knowledge will be very
transferable. We have the in-house experience to build, maintain, and also offer the
services that will be required for the titans.”
NEW PRISONS: THREE SHORTLISTED
Three consortia have been short listed for contracts to finance, design, build and operate
the new 600 bed male category B prisons at Maghull and Belmarsh West. They are:
Serco with construction firm Skanska; Kalyx with Interserve; and G4S with Galliford Try
and NACRO, the crime reduction charity. This is NACRO’s first foray into bidding for
private prison contracts.
PFI COSTS
How much will the nine existing PFI prisons in England and Wales cost over the full life
of their contracts? Due to conflicting official figures and obfuscation this is a difficult
question to answer conclusively.
According to an answer to a parliamentary question on 13 March 2008 the value of the
PFI contracts at the time they were awarded between 1995 and 2003 was £1.89 billion.
According to the same answer, between financial years 2002-03 and 2006-07 estimated
payments to the prison operators for the PFI contracts totalled £843 million; but this does
not even include part-year costs for Peterborough and Bronzefield prisons that opened
during 2004 and 2005. The Altcourse contract alone was valued at £247m in 1995: but in
the five financial years between 2002-2007 the company had already received £161.7
million and the contract does not end until 2023/24. So the overall figure of £1.89 billion
appears to be an underestimate.
But even this doesn’t tell the whole story. According to a document released under the
Freedom Of Information Act the estimated cost of the unitary charges at the time of
contract signature was £4.69 billion for these nine prisons over the life of their respective
contracts.
However, based on a Treasury document that cost has apparently already increased to
£4.91 billion from 2009/10 to 2031. Yet this document omits several years of unitary
charges.
OFT INVESTIGATES BID RIGGING
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has formally alleged that 112 construction companies
including Interserve and Galliford Try have “engaged in bid rigging activities, and in
particular cover pricing.” According to the OFT press release 17 April 2008, cover
pricing “describes a situation where one or more bidders collude with a competitor during
a tender process to obtain a price or prices which are intended to be too high to win the
contract … the tendering authority is not made aware of the contacts between bidders,
leaving it with a false impression of the level of competition and this may result in it
paying inflated prices.”
However the OFT added: “no assumption should be made at this stage that there has been
any infringement by any of the companies named … the 112 parties concerned now have
the opportunity to make written and oral representations which the OFT will take into
account before making a final decision as to whether competition law has been infringed,
and as to the appropriate amount of any penalties the OFT may decide to impose on each
of the firms concerned.”
(The full press release, statement of objection and list of the 112 companies is at
www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/52-08)
* In response to parliamentary questions from John Wilson MSP the Scottish Prison
Service said that the OFT investigation had no implications for the bidding process or the
contract for HMP Addiewell in which Interserve has an interest; “The tender for HM
Prison Addiewell was made by Addiewell Prison Ltd and it is not among those under
investigation. We have reviewed the procurement procedures for award of the contract
and are satisfied that all reasonable steps to identify anti-competitive tendering were
taken. These steps included receipt of signed statements from all bidders confirming that
their tenders were bona fide bids.” (Scottish Parliament Written Answer, 4 June
2008).
G4S + GSL: OFT says OK
The £350 million acquisition by G4S (Group 4 Securicor) of GSL (Group 4 Solutions) by
buying the share capital of GSL’s holding company De Facto 1119 Ltd has been allowed
by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). In a decision published 28 May 2008 the OFT
concluded that the merger would not restrict competition in any of the UK’s criminal
justice ‘markets’ therefore the deal was not referred to the Competition Commission.
The merging companies overlap in the provision of care and justice services in the UK.
However, the OFT stated that “no third parties expressed any substantial concerns about
the transaction.”
In the OFT’s assessment it noted that six companies have reached the pre-qualification
stage of PFI tenders for the construction and operation of prisons in Britain. To date
contracts have been awarded to four, Kalyx, Serco, G4S and GSL.
“The parties submit that the other two pre-qualifying bidders (The GEO Group and
Reliance) are credible bidders which impose a competitive constraint on the four current
contract holders. This view is supported by third parties. The OFT does not accept that
HMPS is a current competitor in this segment, although it cannot entirely exclude that it
exerts some competitive constraint or may do so in the future. The OFT’s conclusion …
is that the existence of five credible bidders for future PFI contracts for the construction
and operation of prisons is sufficient to ensure that competition is maintained in this case.
The OFT considers that the significant anticipated expansion in the number of prison
places will make the segment even more attractive.”
Regarding management-only (MO) prison contracts the OFT found that the competitive
position: “is comparable to that in relation to PFI contracts” and that it: “has received
evidence that HMPS can and does bid in relation to these contracts and is the provider of
last resort for NOMS. As such, HMPS is a significant competitive constraint on private
sector bidders fro MO contracts for prisons.”
The OFT did not see any concerns regarding young offender institutions. It also noted
that: “the merged entity will hold three of the four PFI contracts for the operation and
construction of secure training centres (STCs). The fourth contract was awarded to Serco.
The OFT understands that none of the current contracts will come up for renewal for
almost five years and no new construction of STCs is planned within this period. “
However, in relation to future contracts put out to tender after that date “the OFT
understands that Reliance and the Castle Care Group have bid for contracts in the past
and accepts that there are other potential credible bidders in the form of bidders for prison
contracts.”
The new company would hold four of the six management-only contracts for immigration
removal centres so far put out to tender (the other two are held by The GEO Group and
Serco) Kalyx and Reliance are also credible bidders.
It will also hold five of the eight management only contracts for police custody suites; six
of the 12 contracts for secure transportation of offenders, immigrants and asylum seekers
(four other companies hold the other contracts). G4S also holds three electronic tagging
and monitoring contracts while the other three are held by Serco.
In relation to PFI contracts for the operation of police custody suites one of these was
awarded to GSL and the other four to Reliance. There was no competition concern in this
market “given the lack of overlap between the parties in this area, the fact that Reliance is
by far the most significant operator and the number of other credible bidders for future
tenders.”
(Office of Fair Trading, Anticipated acquisition by G4S of Global Solutions Ltd,
ME/3493/08, www.oft.uk)
PARC REPORT
Parc is a category B training prison and young offender institution near Bridgend,
managed by Group 4 Securicor. This unannounced short follow-up inspection focused
solely on Parc’s 64-bed unit for remanded and sentenced young men aged 15 to 18 - the
only juvenile custodial facility in Wales. In February 2007, the unit expanded from 36
beds and subsequently went through a difficult few months. The inspection “found that
the unit was now more settled and was providing a reasonably safe and respectful
environment, with plenty of purposeful activity and a sound approach to resettlement.”
“The unit had expanded without losing its focus on safety and safeguarding. The
transition had been challenging, not helped by staff shortages, and there had been a
significant increase in bad behaviour and indiscipline. These teething problems had now
abated, with a concomitant reduction in adjudications and separation. Young people told
us that they rarely felt unsafe. “
The chief inspector noted that:“there were few instances of bullying or self-harm, and
impressive multidisciplinary meetings sat daily to review the cases of vulnerable young
people. “
“However, we were disappointed that juveniles continued to be transported with adults,
and that routine strip searching took place on arrival. We were also concerned to find that
some healthcare beds were being used to separate badly behaved young people; we
considered this an inappropriate use of scarce specialist accommodation.”
Accommodation “remained clean and well maintained, and we welcomed the positive
effect of communal dining. Relationships between staff and young people remained
good, supported by an effective rewards and sanctions scheme, inclusive consultative
arrangements, and a complaints system that utilised mediation where appropriate. The
personal officer scheme continued to operate effectively, and the small number of racist
incident complaints were dealt with appropriately. Healthcare was generally sound,
although mental health provision was inadequate, and we identified serious failings with
the pharmacy that required immediate rectification.”
The chief inspector noted that pharmacy services were generally good, “although there
were several irregularities in their management. For example, the pharmacy dispensed
private prescriptions for staff. Medicines sent to wing treatment rooms had not been
received, and some medications no longer required on wings were left outside the
pharmacy and subsequently went missing. Healthcare staff entered the pharmacy when
pharmacy staff were on duty, which was disruptive at busy times. Healthcare staff did not
follow the policy covering use of the out-of-hours medicines cupboard. There were also
occasions when pharmacy staff were asked to supply medication following the verbal
instruction of a doctor relayed by a third party. Overall, pharmacy auditing procedures
were inadequate.”
The chief inspector also said that: “young people spent plenty of time out of their cells.
The quantity and quality of education had improved since our last inspection, and there
was now good support for young people with basic skills needs. However, the curriculum
remained narrow, and more help was needed for those with acute special needs.
Vocational training opportunities had started to improve, and there was good access to
high quality physical education.”
“Resettlement work remained good, with effective sentence planning and good links to
community partners, particularly youth offending teams. While substance misuse services
were effective and there was good support to maintain family links, there remained a
need to develop appropriate offending behaviour programmes that addressed identified
risks and needs.”
The report’s introduction concluded: “since our last inspection, the juvenile unit at Parc
had gone through a rapid and difficult expansion, which had been challenging for staff.
Commendably, the unit had retained its focus on safety, respectful treatment and
resettlement, and had made some improvements to purposeful activity. There is still more
to do, but the unit is well placed to contribute effectively to the criminal justice system in
Wales. Indeed, the unit’s expansion may mark an important step towards housing all
Welsh young people sentenced to custody in their home country, rather than being spread
out across both England and Wales.”
(Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP & YOI Parc
(juveniles) 1-5 October 2007 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, The full report was
published in 2008 and is available at http://inspectorates.justice.gov.uk/hmprisons)
OAKHILL’S TROUBLES
“It might be more realistic for the YJB to empty the centre briefly, so that it can be relaunched with a properly trained and reinvigorated staff, focused on appropriate levels of
order and control, plenty of good quality purposeful activity, dynamic security and an
emphasis on appropriate behaviour within clear boundaries,” said the chief inspector of
prisons in her recent report on GSL-run Oakhill Secure Training Centre.
Oakhill opened in 2004 with space for 80 boys and girls. For some time, Ofsted and the
Youth Justice Board (YJB) had been concerned about the centre, particularly the lack of
sufficient order and control, without which the safety of both children and staff cannot be
assured. As a result, in July 2007 the YJB limited the number of children at the centre to
56 and required the contractor (G4S), to put in place a recovery plan. In addition, the YJB
asked the prisons inspectorate to visit and report on issues of order and control. The
inspection took place in October 2007 but the report was not published until March 2008.
In her report the chief inspector of prisons “confirmed that staff at Oakhill continued to
struggle to maintain order and to control safely the children in their care. A new director
was beginning to get to grips with the task and some green shoots of recovery were
visible, but the task remained immense. A number of troubled and troublesome children
continued to pose serious challenges for staff, many of whom lacked confidence and
appropriate training and who also, until recently, appeared to have had inadequate
management support. The result was an embattled and reactive approach to order and
control, with an over-reliance on emergency responses, a plethora of uncoordinated
responses to poor behaviour, and a disproportionate focus on physical and procedural
security.”
The scale of the centre’s difficulties “was illustrated most starkly by the staggering levels
of use of force by staff, often in response to the all too frequent assaults by children on
staff and on other children. In the nine months before the inspection, force was used 757
times. On 532 occasions this involved the highest level of restraint, requiring at least
three members of staff, with one holding the child’s head. Without a sharp reduction in
these statistics the centre cannot pretend to be anywhere near the recovery required by the
YJB.”
However, the chief inspector also noted “some early signs of improvement. A start had
been made on reinforcing behaviour management arrangements, with better analysis of
incidents and a less reactive approach to their management; work was under way to
identify and remedy skills gaps among staff and bolster middle and senior management;
and an in-house youth offending team had been established. But children remained badly
behaved and positive interaction with staff was limited. Many children were bored,
particularly in education, where teachers – some visibly frightened by their pupils –
struggled to maintain control in the classroom and often merely sent them back to their
residential units where they continued to misbehave.”
She said: “these glimmers of change are welcome, but the scale of the task is daunting.
Poor behaviour still predominated and incidents and assaults continued to erupt. Staff had
been demoralised and stuck in fire-fighting mode for a long time, resulting in an
extremely high attrition rate of 59% a year. They had come to rely too much on use of
force and a risk-averse approach to security, and the required culture change needed
significant resources and time to become embedded. We had some confidence that the
new director could, given time, turn the centre around, but this required the YJB to
provide certainty about its future, which was itself unlikely while matters remained at
such a low ebb.
A concurrent inspection of Oakhill by Ofsted inspectors found that:“ education and
training at the centre continues to be inadequate. It is failing to deliver positive outcomes
for young people in its care and education.” Christine Gilbert, the chief inspector of
education, children’s services and skills said: “ The quality of teaching, the suitability and
breadth of the curriculum, the effectiveness of behaviour management, and leadership
and management are all found to be inadequate.”
(Both reports are available at www.ofsted.gov.uk)
* On 14 May the YJB announced that had issued rectification notices. “Over the past four
years, the YJB has used a number of contractual and non-contractual actions in seeking to
enforce delivery of the services provided by G4S. Despite these efforts G4S is still not
providing the services required and therefore the only appropriate action available is to
issue rectification notices. This action has been endorsed by ministers at the department
for children, schools and families and the ministry of justice…. we will be receiving daily
intelligence alerts which will be used to inform and review, if necessary, the safety of
young people at the centre.”
On 19 May 2008 the Youth Justice Board gave the operator 60 days to make
improvements.
* Oakhill has made progress since its last OFSTED inspection, according to a leaked
OFSTED report seen by Community Care (www.communitycare.co.uk 17 June 2008. It
reported that the STC was upgraded from ‘inadequate’ to ‘satisfactory’ following an
inspection between 2 and 5 June 2008.
* The number of physical restraint interventions used at Oakhill Secure Training Centre
between April 2007 and March 2008 was 905. This compares with 871 at Medway, 519
at Hassockfield and 373 at Rainsbrook over the same period, (Hansard, 8 May 2008).
* Oakhill recorded 154 self-harm incidents between April 2007 and February 2008. This
compares with nine at Hassockfield, six at Rainsbrook and 55 at Medway over the same
period. (Hansard, 8 May 2008. However, a footnote states: data provided by the YJB.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large
scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and
can be subject to change over time).
* Between April 2007 and January 2008 Oakhill recorded 521 trainee on trainee assaults
and 152 trainee on staff assaults. This compares with Rainsbrook 96 and 172;
Hassockfield 93 and 57; and Medway 136 and 233 over the same period, (Hansard, 1
April 2008).
* At Oakhill STC the percentage of staff days lost through sickness absence was 10.7%
during the 12 months ended 24 April 2008. This compares with Rainsbrook 5.6%,
Medway 5.9% and Hassockfield 4.2%, (Hansard, 29 April 2008).
* The turnover of custody staff at Oakhill STC between 2004 and 2007 was :
2004 - 234 started, 77 left.
2005 - 134 started, 93 left.
2006 - 83 started, 80 left.
2007 - 166 started, 100 left.
(Full staff turnover details for all four STCs can be found at House of Commons Hansard,
19 May 2008, Col 72W.)
* The operator of Oakhill made liquidated damages payments of £311,797 in its first year
of opening, 2004. This compares with damages of £35,759 for Hassockfield and
£155,152 at Rainsbrook in 1999, their first year of operation, (Hansard, 21 April 2008).
STC COSTS
The average cost per place at a secure training centre has increased from £132,000 in
2000-01 to £149,000 in 2006-07, (Hansard 21 April 2008).
But in response to David Howarth MP who asked what the initial contract value and
outturn in each year since establishment was of each contracted out secure training
centre, minister of justice David Hanson stated: “the information requested is
commercially sensitive and may not be disclosed,” (Hansard, 21 April 2008).
MONEY GO ROUND
STC (Milton Keynes) Ltd is the company that finances and manages Oakhill secure
training centre. Pre-tax profit for the year ended 31 December 2006 was £0.57 million on
turnover of £12.38 million. During the year the company was charged £9.89 million by
G4S Justice Services Ltd and £20,000 by Noble PFI Fund in fees for operating the secure
training centre. At the end of the financial year 100% of the company’s shares were held
by STC (Milton Keynes) Holdings Ltd which in turn was owned jointly by G$S Justice
Services Ltd and Noble PFI Fund 2 LP.
G4S Justice Services Ltd’s principal activities during the year ended 31 December 2006
were prisoner escort, court custody services, electronic monitoring and prison
management operations. The company’s turnover increased by 13.3% to £104.15 million
and profit after tax increased by 55.7% to £1.8 million compared with 2005.
During the year G4S employed an average of 2,350 operational staff. It also had a
49.32% shareholding in Bridgend Custodial Services Ltd (which runs Parc prison). At the
end of 2006 the company was a wholly owned subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor plc.
The GEO Group (UK) Ltd is owned by Florida-based The GEO Group Inc. For the
financial year ended 31 December 2006 the UK firm made a pre-tax loss of £2.05 million
on turnover of £3.65 million. But the company paid a dividend of £16.36 million. During
the year its activities were “qualifiying to bid and bidding for major public private
partnership contracts in the criminal justice sector.” The company won the contract to
manage Campsfield House immigration removal centre in early 2006. Later that year
GEO acquired Recruitment Solutions International Ltd (RSI) for £1.27 million. RSI
provides deportation escort services to the Home Office.
GEO Group UK Ltd’s managing director is former prison governor and Altcourse private
prison director Walter McGowan. GEO’s accounts list the cost of the director’s
remuneration as £205,200 plus £23,800 pension contribution to money purchase
schemes.
ADDIEWELL BIDDING COSTS
Addiewell Prison Ltd is the company that was formed to design, finance, build and
operate the new 704-cell prison at Addiewell, West Lothian. The contract for Scotland’s
second PFI prison was signed in June 2006, construction is underway and completion is
due in December 2008.
The company’s accounts for the period 10 October 2005 to 31 March 2007 reveal some
of the costs of bidding for the contract. Under a heading ‘related party transactions’ the
bid costs for the company’s partners Interserve Investments Ltd, Royal Bank of
Scotland plc and Kalyx Ltd (a subsidiary of Sodexho SA) were listed respectively as:
£258,191; £778,462; and £418,970 making a total of £1,455,623. The company does not
disclose transactions with its immediate parent company Addiewell Prison (Holdings)
Ltd which, in turn, is jointly owned and controlled by Interserve PFI 2005 Ltd, Royal
Bank Project Investments Ltd and Sodexho Investment Services Ltd.
The accounts also note that under a share pledge agreement Addiewell Prison
(Holdings) Ltd transferred the entire shareholding of Addiewell Prison Ltd to Project
& Export Finance (Nominees) Ltd who are a nominee subsidiary of the company’s
bankers The Royal Bank of Scotland. Although in legal form Addiewell Prison Ltd is
owned by Project & Finance (Nominees) Ltd in substance Addiewell Prison
(Holdings) Ltd is able to exercise control via voting rights and is entitled to dividends,
interest and other payments (whether of an income or capital nature) paid in respect of
the shares.
BUYOUT COSTS? NOT TELLING
John Wilson MSP asked a parliamentary question about the costs of terminating the
management contract fro HMP Addiewell. The response from the Scottish Executive was
that: “the actual compensation cost repayable by Scottish ministers would be calculated
in accordance with the terms of the contract and would reflect the particular
circumstances at the time that the contract was actually terminated, with the value being
variable from the award of the contract to the expiry date” (Scottish Parliament Written
answers, 12 May 2008).
POACHING A PROBLEM
Earlier this year John Wilson MSP also raised concerns about prison governors leaving
the Scottish Prison Service to work for the private sector. He told Holyrood.com 10
March 2008:“The concern I have is with what could be seen as poaching the best
governors and staff within the SPS, which means pressure is then built up within the SPS
… what we really need to do is look at the structure of the SPS because the SPS invests a
lot of time and money in training staff to become deputy governors and governors and
then finds that these staff are poached by the private sector because the private sector
may offer the governor a higher salary.” The director of Kalyx-run Addiewell prison is
Audrey Park, former governor of HMP Shotts.
FOREST BANK ‘PROGRESS BUT WEAKNESSES’
“This inspection found that safety had improved, and that overall Forest Bank was not an
unsafe prison. However, some weaknesses remained, such as the arrangements for
prisoners’ first night in the prison and the management of bullying, which young adults in
particular reported to be a problem. Though commendably the robust efforts were being
made to reduce the supply of drugs, this remained a serious concern, masked by the
unreliability of the prison’s mandatory drug testing procedures. It was likely that in
reality around 20% of tests were positive, and half the prisoners surveyed said it was easy
to obtain drugs. The weakness of the drug detoxification arrangements was not likely to
reduce demand.”
Forest Bank is a contracted-out local prison in Salford. It opened in January 2000 and is
run by Kalyx. According to the chief inspector of prisons, its first inspection, in 2002,
was “relatively positive, though, it lacked sufficient activity.” A follow-up inspection in
2005, however, “recorded significant concerns about safety, including the availability of
illicit drugs. “
In the new report’s introduction, the chief inspector noted that : “Vulnerable prisoners
were located next to identified bullies and those on the basic regime, where they were
exposed to abuse, and had no access to education. We were also concerned to find some
disproportionate and unjustifiable elements of the prison’s disciplinary procedures: such
as the imposition of closed visits on some segregated prisoners, and a basic regime which
could be as punitive as segregation, without its safeguards. Use of force, however, was
low: though it had been used to strip and relocate self-harming prisoners. “
Relationships between staff and prisoners were “in general good and appropriate, and
staff engaged well with prisoners - though prisoners found them to be inexperienced and
inconsistent. All aspects of the environment, the food, and basic hygiene and cleanliness,
were good. Race relations were well-managed and, unusually, black and minority ethnic
prisoners surveyed did not in general report worse experiences than white prisoners:
though the responses from Muslim prisoners were much more negative. Other aspects of
diversity, and the management of foreign nationals, were much less well developed. “
Healthcare was “unacceptably poor, with staff shortages and some unsafe reception
screening and pharmaceutical practices. Primary care, including primary mental
healthcare, was weak, and inpatients had a very limited regime. Secondary mental
healthcare was, however, reasonably good. “
The chief inspector also noted that, for a local prison, “Forest Bank provided good
periods of time out of cell and purposeful activity – though considerably less of both than
it was reporting. Efforts had been made to link work and training to realistic employment
possibilities, in partnership with outside agencies, and to provide vocational
qualifications. There was a good range of education courses, including a number of short
accredited courses suitable for the prison’s largely short-stay population.”
But she found that: “40% of prisoners were unemployed; and on one day we found 650
prisoners, nearly 60% of the population, locked in their cells. Our assessment on this
occasion reflected the quality and effective management of activities; but when we return
we will expect to see significant improvements in the quantity provided.”
Resettlement was an area of “considerable strength, with a focus throughout the prison on
reducing reoffending. Excluded from the north-west area strategy, Forest Bank had
developed some innovative local partnerships: including one with the local authority,
which offered both jobs and housing to prisoners who had achieved construction
qualifications; and a scheme with the Co-operative bank for prisoners to open bank
accounts while in prison. Links had been developed with local employers and colleges,
and only 4% of prisoners had left without accommodation. A well-resourced offender
management unit had recently begun work and sentence planning was up to date. Work
with indeterminate-sentenced prisoners was, however, underdeveloped and lifers could
spend two years at the prison without undertaking any relevant work towards parole.”
According to the chief inspector Forest Bank “has made commendable and imaginative
progress in resettlement, largely on its own initiative, and has developed a relevant range
of education, work and training. These are considerable strengths in a local prison,
focusing on reducing reoffending. However, there were also some weaknesses. There
were not enough activities for its expanded population.”
“The availability of drugs remained of concern, and it will be important to gain an
accurate picture of the scale of the problem in order to continue to tackle both supply and
demand effectively. Violence reduction strategies and the support for vulnerable
prisoners also needed improvement. The other major weakness was healthcare, and
urgent action is needed to raise the service to an acceptable standard. Kalyx and the
prison’s managers will need to ensure that these fundamental issues are addressed as
firmly and positively as the resettlement agenda has been.”
In terms of the chief inspector’s healthy prison criteria Forest Bank was not performing
sufficiently well against the tests for safety and respect although performing reasonably
well against the tests for purposeful, activity and resettlement. The chief inspector noted
six examples of good practice and made 158 recommendations for improvements as well
as 10 housekeeping points.
(Report on an unannounced full inspection of HMP Forest Bank, 10-14 September
2007 by HM Chief Inspector of prisons, published 5 February 2008. The full report
is available at: http://inspectorates.justice.gov.uk/hmprisons)
BRONZEFIELD:LIMITED PROGRESS
HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, is a privately-managed local prison for women
run by Kalyx. This unannounced short follow-up inspection found that the prison, which
opened in 2004, was “continuing to provide a reasonably safe and respectful environment
for its needy and challenging population.” Inspectors also found that, “while access to
purposeful activity had slipped back, work on resettlement had improved.”
The chief inspector noted that: “Bronzefield remained a reasonably safe place. Reception
was clean and bright, but very busy and, while procedures were satisfactory, information
giving needed to be improved. Staff were vigilant in confronting bullying. Use of force,
adjudications and segregation were now better monitored, but use of the special cells in
healthcare needed to be more tightly managed. There had been some improvements in
detoxification arrangements.”
But “unfortunately, self-harm remained endemic and, while staff managed relevant
systems adequately, these needed to be more multi-disciplinary. There was also a need to
develop a more therapeutic approach and to move away from the overuse of stripclothing for women at risk.”
Overall, the chief inspector said that:“Bronzefield remained a generally respectful prison,
with clean, well maintained accommodation and reasonable food. However, it was
disappointing to find that staff–prisoner relationships had deteriorated since our last visit.
The supportive approach to prisoners that we previously commended had not been
sustained and staff inexperience remained a problem. Matters were not helped by
weaknesses in the personal officer and incentives and earned privileges schemes, and
ineffective application and complaint systems.”
Race relations work “was adequate, but there had been little progress on our previous
recommendations to improve arrangements for the significant numbers of foreign
national women. General health services were reasonably good, but there was still a lack
of primary mental health care. It was also unacceptable that some important disease
prevention and screening services were not delivered because they were not specified in
the establishment’s contract.”
Time out of cell “remained good at the time of the inspection, but the contractually
specified hours had not been met over the summer months and we were concerned that it
was planned to cut hours because of difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. Learning
and skills provision was barely adequate and staff shortages impeded prisoner access to
activities.”
“Commendably, most of our concerns about resettlement had been addressed, although
there were still no custody plans for women serving short sentences. Public protection
arrangements had improved, and drug services were generally good. Visiting
arrangements were satisfactory, but could be improved further,” the chief inspector said.
“Bronzefield only opened in June 2004, and its largely inexperienced staff have had to
learn to cope with some very damaged women. Unfortunately, not all staff have been able
to maintain the caring and thoughtful approach that we found on our previous visit and
high staff turnover has meant that new staff have entered an establishment under
considerable strain. Overall, while there is much still to commend at Bronzefield, it is
disappointing that there has not been more progress after such a good start.”
(Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMPBronzefield, 1-4
October 2007 by HM Chief Inspector of prisons, published 28 March 2008. The full
report is available at: http://inspectorates.justice.gov.uk/hmprisons)
WHAT A DIFFERENCE AN ‘H’ MAKES
Sodexho Alliance of France, the parent company of UK prison operator Kalyx (formerly
known as UK Detention Services) has changed its name to Sodexo, deleting the ‘h’ and
the word ‘Alliance’. Earlier this year the company announced it was “renewing and
revitalising its brand to reinforce its single global brand strategy and support its
transformation from a food services to a services company.”
The company’s logo has also been “streamlined.” The significance of deleting the ‘h’ was
“because the ‘h’ is often associated with the hotel and foodservices business, particularly
in Europe … in addition to increasing the brand’s scope and impact, the simpler, more
dynamic name has been found to be easier to pronounce and spell for people around the
world.”
In England Kalyx operates Forest Bank, Bronzefield and Peterborough prisons,
Harmondsworth detention centre and two resettlement hostels in Bristol. In Scotland the
company will run Addiewell prison when it opens later this year.
KILMARNOCK CRAMPED BUT SAFER
Serco-run Kilmarnock prison is the fourth most overcrowded prison in Scotland with 500
cells accommodating 635 prisoners on the first day of a recent inspection by Scotland’s
chief inspector of prisons.
“There can be no doubt that the reduction in time out of cell in recent times in
Kilmarnock is a consequence in part at least to overcrowding. It always is,” said Dr
Andrew Mclellan. He also noted that the prison was “safer than once it was” but that
“prisoners having not nearly enough useful opportunities to do rehabilitating work is a
classic mark of an overcrowded prison.”
The chief inspector listed 44 action points and made six recommendations for
improvement.
The inspection was carried out in September and December 2007 and the report was
published in April 2008.
The full report is available at:www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/28081119/0
* On 4 January 2008 riot police had to be called in help Serco staff quell a violent
disturbance at Kilmarnock. A Strathclyde Police spokesperson told NEWS.Scotsman.com,
7 January 2008 that prisoners caused a disturbance in ‘A” hall and three van loads of
public order police units were sent to the prison. Three prisoners were transferred to a
publicly run prison and reported to the procurator fiscal for alleged breach of the peace
and vandalism.
OTHER NOTABLE REPORTS
The chief inspector of prisons has also recently published an annual report for 2006/07,
reports on Altcourse and Wolds private prisons as well as Harmondsworth immigration
removal centre. In June 2008 a themed report ‘Time Out Of Cell’ found that official
figures for time out of cell in both public and private sectors were overestimated. The
chief inspector called for more accurate reporting system to be implemented.