APPENDIX 2
THE PFI CONTRACTS FOR
BRIDGEND AND FAZAKERLEY PRISONS (PAC/97- 98/347)
Copy of a letter to the
Clerk of the Committee from the Director General, HM Prison Service
Thank you for your letter of 19 June in which,
on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts you raised several
operational and contractual questions about Parc and Fazakerley
prisons. The responses below follow the same order as the questions.
I apologise not to have met your deadline.
Question 1 Please provide a summary of the
operational problems which have occurred at Parc Prison since
it opened.
Parc Prison (at Bridgend) has experienced a
range of operational problems since it opened. There have been
a greater number of incidents than might have been expected. The
most serious incidents are listed below:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| 27 November 1997 | Self-inflicted death of David Jenkins.
|
| 25 December 1997 | 30 Young Offenders refuse to return to cells.
|
| 26 December 1997 | 20 adults refuse to return to cells at lunch-time lock-up.
|
| 27 December 1997 | 17 Young Offenders barricaded in one cell and smashed up.
|
| 16 February 1998 | 40 Young Offenders refused to lock-up and as a consequence were locked down all day on 17 February. Several smashed-up cells.
|
| 20 February 1998 | Concerted indiscipline incident-Tornado put on stand-by.
|
| 8 March 1998 | Hostage incident involving two officers. Both released unharmed.
|
| 18 April 1998 | Concerted indiscipline involving 33 Young Offenders on exercise yard. Mutual aid arrangements put on stand-by. Some damage to living units-no staff or prisoner injuries.
|
| 5 May 1998 | Self-inflicted death of Dallas Lee.
|
| 6 May 1998 | 40 adult prisoners involved in an act of concerted indiscipline. Staff forced to withdraw. Mutual aid arrangements activated.
|
| 13 May 1998 | Prisoner released in error.
|
| 14 May 1998 | Concerted indiscipline on exercise yard involving 30+ Young Offenders. Later that day Security intelligence indicated that there would be trouble on A Wing. Mutual aid arrangements were activated.
|
| 20 May 1998 | Lock-down search for a firearm after receipt of intelligence report that there may be a gun on A Wing. No firearm found. Security intelligence indicated that there may be trouble on A Wing. Mutual aid arrangements were activated.
|
| |
Parc's operational problems have been in several different
areas. There have been problems with some of the technology used
at Parc and it would be true to say that the failure of the telephone
technology in the early stages contributed to prisoner unrest.
There have also been problems with the locking system which has
necessitated the issue to residential staff keys to operate cell
doors during parts of the day. Securicor are making some modifications
to cell door locks themselves. This is because there has been
some evidence that prisoners are able to tamper with the locks
in some way which prevents them locking properly.
2(a) What is causing these problems? Is it reliance on
a system of high technology but relatively low staffing levels?
Is it Securicor's lack of experience in running prisons? Or are
there other factors?
A significant issue, apparent as soon as the prison became
operational was that insufficient staff were deployed to the residential
units. Securicor agreed the need to increase staff numbers, with
our consent staff from the Metropolitan Escort contracts were
deployed from 27 April. As new, permanent, staff have been recruited
and trained the escorts staff are being returned to London.
Another issue affecting the performance of Parc has been
the lack of experience of its basic grade staff in managing prisoners.
There is no doubt that this has contributed to the lack of positive
staff prisoner relationships, an ingredient which the Prison Service
acknowledges as the cornerstone to effective control in prisons.
The vast majority of staff were directly recruited and some members
of the Senior Management Team had no prison experience, although
others were experienced governors recruited from the Prison Service
and other contracted out prison organisations.
There were problems caused by a lack of leadership with senior
management failing to address issues in a consistent and sustained
manner. There have been two changes of Director and one of the
Deputy Director. There have been other changes to the Senior Management
Team at the Prison. The current Director of Parc is the former
governor of Bristol Prison who has many years' experience in the
public sector. Securicor are also funding the secondment of a
Governor 4 from the public sector to their Senior Management Team;
The Deputy Governor at Channings Wood is undertaking this attachment.
The restructured senior management team is giving priority
to ensuring that "prisoner systems" (e.g. canteen, telephones,
visits) are more robust. The early evidence is that complaints
have reduced. More recently there is evidence of distinct improvement
in staff/prisoners relationships and control. The much improved
level of cleanliness in the residential units testifies to this.
A further factor contributing to the operational problems,
particularly the incident of concerted indiscipline on 14 may,
was racial tension. This was exacerbated by the transfer into
Parc of prisoners from Feltham, some of whom were black. As a
temporary measure all of these prisoners have been transferred
out, to give Parc more time to develop effective Race Relations,
and anti bullying systems.
3(a) Does the reply to Mr Alan Williams' Parliamentary
Question set out the full extent of the costs which the Prison
Service have incurred as a result of the operational difficulties?
The reply to Mr Alan William's Parliamentary Question set
out the majority of the costs incurred as a result of operational
difficulties.
3(b) Are there costs other than the costs associated with
providing support staff?
The costs not included were the cost of Prison Service Senior
Management time, the costs incurred in opening the incident suite
at Headquarters and the staffing costs for doing so, the staffing
costs for technical support staff, e.g. for a Control and Restraint
Adviser and any Police or other Public Service costs.
4(a) What remedies does the PFI contract give the Prison
Service for dealing with these operational difficulties?
Payments to contractors are made on the basis of "available
places". Places are deemed to be available if a number of
criteria are met, including basic issues such as availability
of heating, lighting, food etc but also operational criteria,
in particular that the levels of security and safety in the prison
and control of prisoners are satisfactory in the opinion of the
Authority. All the fees for a place may be withheld.
Contracts also contain a "penalty points" system
where any non-compliance with performance measures leads to the
award of pre-determined penalty points. The contractor is allowed
a quarterly threshold of penalty points up to which no financial
penalty is incurred. Once the threshold is exceeded, financial
penalties are applied. The penalties are limited to 5% of annual
contract price.
There is a further reduction in fees if the contractor holds
more than a specified number of prisoners two to a cell for two
days or more (whether or not the cells are designed for two).
(b) What financial penalties will the contractor be liable
for? How much is the Prison Service seeking to recover from the
contractor? Has the contractor agreed to pay those penalties?
A deduction of £54,782 has been made from payments to
the contractor for incidents in February. The contractor has accepted
this deduction. The contractor has been advised of our intention
to make a deduction of £51,915 for incidents in May and for
failure to meet minimum standards in February-April. This is the
subject of discussions with the contractor. A full audit of the
contractor's compliance with the Performance Measures since opening
is taking place this week. It is anticipated this audit will identify
further substantial deductions to be made from the contract payments
but it is not possible to quantify these yet.
(c) Will the prisons which have provided support staff
to deal with these problems be reimbursed?
The arrangements for support are mutual and privately managed
prisons may in future be required to provide support to public
prisons for which no fee will be payable.
5. What lessons have the Prison Service learned from these
recent difficulties which will inform their future PFI prison
projects?
These include:
i. The requirement for bidders to identify what additional
staff and management support will be needed for the first year
of operation was introduced in the competition for Lowdham Grange
and is now established in the bidding process for DCMF prisons.
ii. Setting out the minimum period for the prisoner build-up
rate so that this does not become a matter of commercial competition
is curently being introduced into the Marchington and Onley competition.
iii. Closer focus on staffing levels against work requirements
and in the context of the operational design was introduced for
the Lowdham Grange and subsequent competitions.
iv. The structure of the evaluation process was reviewed for
Lowdham Grange where the design and operational assessment was
separated from the commercial assessment until all tests on deliverability
were completed. This allowed for the design and operational team
to focus on their issues without being influenced by price and
other commercial issues.
v. Offering bidders an opportunity to phase in operational
proposals to allow for operational difficulties is currently being
introdced in the Marchington and Onley competitions.
vi. A greater preparedness to challenge the efficiency of
proposed new technology and to require greater assurance that
it will be effective.
6(a) What steps did the Prison Service take to satisfy
themselves that Securicor's proposed staffing levels were adequate
before the contract was awarded?
Staffing levels at Parc were acknowledged to be taut but
given the design, which was expected to offer supervision benefits,
and the anticipated functioning of the IT systems, were expected
to be sufficient. In the event the failures of the IT process
not only diverted staff from other duties but undermined confidence
in processes. Greater confidence was placed in the capacity of
the middle- management to provide the leadership, guidance and
support to enable staff to function better.
(b) Will Securicor be increasing staffing levels in the
light of the recent operational difficulties? Will Securicor bear
the cost of all additional staff that may be needed both in the
short term and for the remainder of the contract period?
The contractor's Action Plan for improving performance at
Parc includes additional staff. Under DCMF contracts all the risks
for staff costs are borne by the contractor so Securicor will
have to bear the cost of additional staff.
7(a) Are the problems which have occurred at Bridgend solely
attributable to Securicor's approach or has Costain's design contributed
to the problems?
7
The problems are not attributable to the design. While the
Costain's design has been acceptable it has been overtaken by
better and cheaper designs.
(b) Would the Prison Service now be inclined to contract
for the designs and building of prisons, and to decide separately
whether or not to contract out their operation?
The Home Secretary commissioned a review to establish whether
such a contract approach is feasible. The conclusion of the review,
to be announced in Parliament shortly, is that such contracts
do not offer value for money when compared with DCMF contracts.
8. Have any problems occurred at Fazakerly prison since
it opened?
Opening any new prison is a difficult and sensitive undertaking.
Judged from an operational perspective, Altcourse prison's first
seven months have been a success.
Altcourse opened successfully on 1 December 1997. The population
built up in phases until the operational capacity of 600 prisoners
was reached on 7 March 1998. Contractual compliance has been carefully
monitored and deficiencies drawn to the contractors attention.
These are being remedied and, where appropriate, financial penalties
have been applied.
A relatively minor incident occurred on 15 February 1998
where some 68 prisoners refused to go to their cells. The matter
was resolved peacefully in 180 minutes.
9. Can the Prison Service provide evidence to support their
previous statement to the Committee that the average cost of using
police cells as temporary accommodation is £300 a prisoner
a night?
The average cost of £300 per prisoner per night for
keeping prisoners in police cells is based on charges incurred
by the Prison Service in 1994-95, the last time police cells were
used on a regular basis to keep prisoners that could not be accommodated
in prisons. The basis of the charge is laid down in a Home Office
circular issued to police authorities. The current guidance, issued
in 1997, and the previous guidance issued in 1993, clearly states
that only police officer and other staff costs directly incurred
as a result of holding prisoners on behalf of the Prison Service,
and other reasonable addiltional expenditure directly incurred
will be reimbursed by the Prison Service. Charges therefore represent
'net additional cost' to the taxpayer.
Costs of using police cells will always be disproportionately
high. The bulk of these charges is staff costs, and as the need
for these cells is often at very short notice (perhaps only two
or three days), much of the manning required can only be provided
by using officers on overtime or cancelling time off, rest days
etc., which under police regulations carries a premium payment
to the staff involved.
The very high costs per prisoner night quoted by the Committee
have occurred in isolated instances where police cells have been
manned and prepared. In the event, the number of prisoners committed
by the courts was lower than anticipated, thus resulting in very
high per prisoner per day charges. These 'peak' charges will be
included in the overall average of £300 per night but, given
their rarity are unlikely to have had a distorting effect on the
average.
10. What steps will the Prison Service be taking in future
contracts for the recovery of such costs from the contractor,
where they arise on account of the contractor's poor performance?
At Lowdham Grange, and for future contracts, the threshold
of "penalty points" above which financial penalties
apply has been lowered. Also, escapes have been taken out of the
"penalty points" system and separate fixed financial
penalties introduced (Lowdham Grange £50,000 escape from
prison and £25,000 escape from escorts, with these penalties
increased to £60,000 and £30,000 for Agecroft and Pucklechurch.)
Director General
HM Prison Service
30 June 1998
| 
