House of Commons - Public Accounts

Select Committee on Public Accounts Thirtieth Report

THE PRISON SERVICE: PRISON CATERING

THE QUALITY OF CATERING

7. An inquiry in 1990 into prison disturbances (the Woolf Inquiry)[4] found that the poor quality of food served in prisons was a recurrent theme of prisoners' complaints, and improvements in food quality were recommended. In subsequent years the Prison Service introduced a number of changes aimed at improving the quality of catering. Flexibility for caterers to provide food suited to prisoner needs has been increased through a system of devolved cash catering whereby prison caterers are given a budget and discretion to buy the food they need.[5] The Prison Service explained that this replaced a much more restrictive system, and that there was universal agreement that devolved cash catering had greatly improved the quality of catering.[6]

8. Prison officers have traditionally run prison kitchens, but civilian caterers are increasingly being employed. Prison governors take ultimate responsibility for catering. On a daily basis the governor or one of the governor's immediate assistants inspects the kitchen and tastes the food.[7] The National Audit Office found that 84 per cent of governors responding to the study survey considered prison food to be good or very good.[8]

9. At the 12 prisons visited during their examination, the National Audit Office found that the quality of catering varied both in terms of the quality of catering arrangements and the quality of food served. One prison, Coldingley, was rated as poor; for example, the prison did not comply with procedures for purchase and storage of ingredients. Four prisons were achieving a good standard of catering arrangements.[9] There were weaknesses in arrangements for food storage, preparation and production techniques, and none of the prisons monitored the temperature of food as served to prisoners.[10] Good catering arrangements tended to result in better food.[11]

10. The National Audit Office found that many of the Prison Service's catering standards were stated in general terms and did not provide measures of quality or comparative performance.[12] They also identified weaknesses in the specifications for checking and monitoring food supplied.

11. The Prison Service accepted that standards were not consistent across establishments, and that there was no room for complacency.[13] It was using the Prison Service's menu management and food safety manuals as a basis for establishing some national mandatory standards which would be introduced in 1998. Prisons' performance would be audited against these. In undertaking the work on standards and specifications, and in developing inspection arrangements and quality control, the Prison Service would take account of the good practices identified in the National Audit Office's report and bring them to the attention of all governors and catering managers. Action plans would be drawn up by the end of January 1998 for each of the National Audit Office's recommendations, with a view to implementing the further improvements required.[14]

12. The Prison Service's catering advisers provide technical advice to prison caterers under the terms of a service level agreement with prisons. The National Audit Office found that the advice under the service level agreement to caterers had been provided in full at only one of the 12 prisons visited.[15] The Prison Service told us that it had since ensured that catering advisers issue reports as required under the agreement, and emphasised the role of the catering advisers in improving standards. Their visits were being used to communicate good practice, to identify any shortcomings and improvements needed, and to refer these to line management, the governor and the area manager as necessary to ensure that they were addressed. The Director General would be going to the next annual catering conference to get across the messages in the National Audit Office's report.[16]

13. We probed further on the apparent reluctance of some governors to adopt good practice. The Prison Service explained that some standards were already mandatory because they were backed by food hygiene and safety legislation. Since 1990 prisons had been subject to inspections by environmental health officers, but in that time only one improvement notice had been issued anywhere in the Prison Service.[17] With greater delegation resulting from the move away from the previous very rigid catering system, it was more difficult to enforce things quickly, and changes were best delivered with a degree of consent. Ultimately, however, the Prison Service was prepared to enforce those changes it felt to be necessary. Governors would be required to meet the standards, and the mandatory standards would be clear so that area catering advisers would know when they were not being met. The Prison Service was considering making the catering advisers directly responsible to area managers in order to give them more authority.[18]

14. In the case of Coldingley, steps had been taken to improve arrangements after the Prison Service's monitoring had identified problems. Following an unsatisfactory contract, the service had been re-established in-house, with a new kitchen being built and a strengthened catering operation. Coldingley was now assessed to be up to a good standard. The Director General had taken lunch there himself during an unannounced visit and had found the food to be wholesome and satisfactory.[19]

15. Recent surveys of prisoners' views on food have shown wide variations in prisoner satisfaction between prisons which cannot be explained by the type of prisoner or establishment.[20] The Prison Service said in evidence that most prisons run a system for prisoners to record complaints, which the catering officer will try to resolve individually. Some prisons run catering committees, where the catering officer meets prisoner representatives to discuss food and menus. The Prison Service had looked at the level of local complaints at the 12 prisons visited during the National Audit Office study and found a reduction of some 40 per cent in the number of complaints about food over the last three years. Complaints pursued up to national level numbered only 112 in the year to March 1997, less than one per cent of the total number of complaints received on all subjects. In the Prison Service's view, this provided evidence for the general perception that efforts to improve food quality in recent years had contributed to a much higher level of satisfaction amongst prisoners.[21]

16. The National Audit Office suggested that the most efficient and equitable method of providing a choice of meals was the pre-select system, which allowed prisoners to decide what they wanted a day or more in advance, gave the catering manager a reasonable indication of demand, and could reduce the requirement for special diet meals. If operated properly, pre-selection could reduce waste and the risk of confrontation at the serving point, because prisoners knew what they would be getting.[22] Around half of prisons were using it, and the Prison Service recognised that it would now need to accelerate progress on pre-selection, which had reduced food waste and had proved itself across a wide range of establishments.[23] Remand centres and local prisons might find the introduction of pre-selection more difficult because of the very fast turnover of prisoners. It had to be operated on a 24-hour rolling basis to work in a local prison, and some prisons were now operating a 24-hour pre-select system.[24]

17. The National Audit Office noted that the Prison Service did not prescribe minimum nutritional requirements.[25] The Prison Service explained that caterers had previously been issued with set ingredients based on a dietary scale for use on prescribed menus that would provide minimum nutritional standards for prisoners. This was the restrictive system which was criticised by the Woolf Inquiry, and the Prison Service had found that other similar organisations (the National Health Service, the Ministry of Defence, and the school meals service) did not have minimum nutritional standards. Minimum standards could not be guaranteed because there was no way of ensuring the prisoners ate the food. Under the system of devolved cash catering prisoners were offered a choice, and experience suggested that they would generally select a balanced diet over time. The Prison Service intended to commission research in 1998 to sample actual nutritional standards.[26]

18. The National Audit Office found that food service and delivery times varied widely across the 12 prisons visited. Only one prison had served all meals within half an hour of preparation; six others had served all meals or had begun service within one hour, and two took over 2 hours to complete service.[27] The Prison Service explained that the layout of the prison and high security levels could increase delivery times to dispersed accommodation wings, but accepted that a long holding time in the kitchen was poor practice. The food safety manual now sets a standard of 45 minutes from preparation to service which all prisons would be encouraged to achieve. The Prison Service would consider whether it needed to make the 45-minute standard mandatory.[28]

19. None of the 12 prisons visited were applying the Prison Service standard of a maximum of 14 hours between evening meal and breakfast.[29] The Prison Service agreed that it was unacceptable to serve the last meal of the day at 4.30pm, but explained that serving food was the most staff intensive activity of the day. There were clear resource implications in the need to have staff stay on duty for an extra hour, which would adversely affect another prison activity.[30] There was provision on medical grounds for prisoners with conditions such as diabetes, but the standard was not mandatory because of resource constraints. Factors such as the pressure from the increase of some 30 per cent in the prisoner population over the last three years meant that the Prison Service had not made the progress it would have liked towards serving the evening meal later.[31]

Conclusions

20. Devolved responsibilities in the Prison Service mean that governors have considerable local discretion in the management of catering. The Committee nevertheless urges the Prison Service to promote the widest possible implementation of good practices, and to establish mandatory quality standards where necessary.

21. We are concerned that the Prison Service's area catering advisers may have underplayed their key role in providing advice to prison caterers and in helping them to improve standards. We look to the Prison Service to encourage these staff to be more active in improving the management of catering in prisons in their area, in particular by helping prison caterers to implement best practice.

22. The Committee is concerned that the performance of an individual prison can fall well below the standard of the rest, as illustrated by the poor standards operating at Coldingley Prison in the purchase and storage of ingredients. We recognise the action taken to improve arrangements at Coldingley Prison, but look to the Prison Service urgently to identify any other poorly performing prisons and take remedial action as necessary.

23. Over the last three years, there has been a 40 per cent reduction in the number of prisoners' complaints about food at the 12 prisons visited by the National Audit Office. In view of the benefits of choice, reduced waste, and fewer special diet meals which it appears to offer, we are disappointed that only half of all prisons use the pre-select menu system. We recommend that the Prison Service should work towards the adoption of an appropriate pre-select menu system in all prisons.

24. We note the reasons for not having minimum nutritional requirements for prisoners, but believe that it is important to encourage prisoners to eat a varied, balanced and nutritious diet. The Committee endorses the proposed prison research project into actual nutritional standards.

25. The time taken between food preparation and service is unacceptably long, with two of the prisons visited taking over two hours to complete service. We note that the Prison Service has set a standard of three-quarters of an hour from preparation to service, and recommend that prison governors be held accountable for achieving it.

26. In many prisons there is a long interval of more than 14 hours between the evening meal and breakfast the following day, but the Prison Service believes that only a major shift from other activities would allow the staffing of more suitable intervals between meals. We urge the Prison Service to work towards more flexible arrangements, taking account of experience in prisons which are managing to set more normal meal times.

4 Prison Disturbances April 1990, Report of an Inquiry by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Woolf (Parts I and II) and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim (Part III), Cm 1456 February 1991 Back



© Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 8 April 1998