Parliamentary Search

Written question asked by Ian Lavery (Labour) on Wednesday, 20 July 2011, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 5 September 2011. It was answered by Crispin Blunt (Conservative) on Monday, 5 September 2011 on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

Prison: Standards

Question
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 13 July 2011, Official Report, column 31WS, on prison and probation services, if he will place in the Library a copy of any analytical reports used by the National Offender Management Service in determining the prison establishments most suitable for the present round of market testing.
Answer

To determine the prisons included in the competition announcement that I made on 13 July 2011 the following publicly available data was taken into account:"Prison category""Prison location (region)."The following internal metrics were also taken into account:"Prison size as defined by operational capacity in March 2010.""Direct cost per place as defined by operational capacity in March 2010. Direct costs are taken from 2009-10 outturns, with costs associated with unique services stripped out.""An internal assessment of the suitability for payment by results.""An internal assessment of the suitability for working prisons.""Latest estimates of maintenance necessary to be undertaken in the next ten years""Internal estimates of potential levels of inefficiency on a prison by prison basis used to estimate the potential savings which could be delivered as a result of competition."I have included and placed in the Library a summary of all these metrics for the nine prisons competed, except the internal estimates of potential levels of inefficiency and the level of maintenance, because this data is commercial in confidence.

Table 1: Recommended candidates for prison competition
Name Category Op cap Region Cost per place (£) Cluster suitable for PBR Industrial prisons Rationale for selection
a Lindholme—including Lindholme Immigration Removal Centre Cat C 1,134 Yorkshire 18,608 Yes Yes 1. Lindholme infrastructure allows re-role as industrial prison, given good infrastructure.
Moorland Cat C 779 Yorkshire 20,221 Yes — 2. The cluster allows diverse prison system where providers may bid for entire package under PBR.
Hatfield Open 260 Yorkshire 20,221 Yes — 3. New geographical area introduced.
4. Potential to attract competitive labour market rates.
b Onley Cat C 707 East Midlands 24,740 — — 1. High potential for financial saving.
2. Introduces competitive pressure in geographical area with incumbent private providers.
Coldingley Cat C 513 South East 27,326 — Yes 1. New geographical area introduced (South East).
2. Sufficient infrastructure ensures every prisoner is able to work.
The Wolds Cat C 395 Yorkshire 23,651 — — 1. Current contract expires January 2013. Needs to be re-competed.
c Acklington Cat C 946 North East 20,157 Yes — 1. New geographical area introduced (North East).
Castington YOI 410 North East 35,987 Yes — 2. Suitable for PBR as a cluster.
Durham Local 985 North East 23,379 Yes — 3. Presents large savings potential including clustering.
Notes: Cost per place information is based on 2009-10 data. Lindholme maintenance costs are low until final two years. Castington maintenance data is forthcoming, as part of due diligence to be undertaken on whole package.

Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
69139; 532 c292-4W
Session
2010-12
Related items
Deposited Paper DEP2011-1418
Monday, 5 September 2011
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Subjects
Prisons Standards
Contains statistics
Yes
Link
View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk