| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 July 2009 : Column 50WH—continued
It is important to consider what effect the proposed private sector takeover has had on the prison staff. The publication of the report and the subsequent decision to put the prison out to market tender has of course had an effect on staff morale. Through my "Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden" campaign, I have met with the prison governor and his officers. The prison officers at Wellingborough do a hard job in difficult circumstances, and it has not been made easier by the overcrowding problem.
I went to listen to the concerns of prison officers over the pay dispute, on the picket line outside Wellingborough prison. I found the officers to be genuine and hard-working, but they loathed being outside the prison rather than inside looking after the inmates. At the time, they had a real grievance. By law, they were not allowed to go on strike and their pay on return was set by an independent tribunal. The Government backtracked on that independent review and did not fully implement it. They were wrong, and I told them so. On 25 March 2008, in a debate in Westminster Hall, I said:
"As there is a prison in my constituency, the final point that I should make is that when the prison officers went on strike, I went to talk to them on the picket line. They are a terrific bunch of men and women, who dedicate their lives to public service. To be on a picket line was unnatural for them-they did not want to be there. They could not wait to get back to the prison, but they had been driven into a situation in which they felt they had no alternative. The Government were wholly wrong to break an agreement".-[Official Report, 25 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 34WH.]
Recently, I had a meeting with the prison governor to discuss the improvements that have been made at the prison and to listen to his plans to make a bid in the market testing exercise. I also met a local prison officer and a representative from the national union. I note that local prison officers care so much about Wellingborough prison that they offered their assistance, supporting the market testing bid despite the national union's opposition. The Prison Officers Association fully supports Wellingborough's bid and will assist the governor in that application.
The Prison Officers Association has many concerns about privately run prisons, which it says can be cheaper than state prisons only because they have cheaper staff costs and lower staff levels, leading to a greater number of assaults on staff. I, too, have concerns about privately run prisons. From recently published information, it would seem that private prisons are on average not as well run as those owned by the state. As a Thatcherite Conservative, I believe in the private sector and that in competitive areas private solutions are normally best, but we are talking about a public service for which there is no marketplace and no real competition.
Data recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by More 4 News has shown that private prisons in Britain are performing worse than those run by the state. Four of the 10 private prisons assessed under the prison performance assessment tool scored the second lowest rating of 2, which is classed as requiring development. Those low ratings brought the average performance of private prisons below that of state-run prisons. In the third quarter last year, the average overall score for private prisons was 2.6 out of a rating total of 4. In state-run prisons during the same period, the average was 2.85. Moreover, separate figures
released under the Freedom of Information Act show that nearly twice as many prisoner complaints are upheld in private prisons than are upheld in state-run institutions.
I pose a number of questions to the Minister; I have given her prior notice of them. First, what criteria were used to determine specifically whether HMP Wellingborough should be market tested? Secondly, if a prison rated poorly performing improves in every area, is it not possible for it to have another inspection before the deadline for bids closes? Thirdly, when does the bid for taking over the contract to run Wellingborough prison close? What is the date?
Fourthly, what information do the private and public sectors have to provide for a bid to be accepted, and is that information the same for both sectors? Fifthly, if the local management team wins the bid, how will it operate? Will it be like a management buy-out? Will the prison be run independently or be reabsorbed into the National Offender Management Service? Sixthly, what criteria will be used in determining what bid should be successful? How much weighting will be given to the cost per prisoner? How much weighting will be given to education and retraining, and how much to security?
Seventhly, who will determine the bid? Will it be an independent body or the Secretary of State? Eighthly, will the bids be published in full, so that taxpayers can see what was on offer? Ninthly, on exactly what date will the bid be awarded? Finally, if two bids are deemed to be roughly equal, will preference be given to the private sector or the public?
I hope I have demonstrated that Wellingborough prison has improved significantly since its inspection last year. I want that improvement to continue, whether it be in the public or the private sector.
12.49 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss not only HMP Wellingborough, but prison competition policy more generally.
The Government have a duty to the public to provide efficient and effective prison services-I do not think that the hon. Gentleman took issue with that-and the system must both punish and reform offenders, while protecting the public. Investing in prison and probation services has been a key priority for the Government: prison places have increased by about 25,000-to 85,000-and spending has risen by a similar proportion, while the probation case load has risen by 52 per cent. and spending by 70 per cent. in real terms. We are the first Government since the second world war to oversee a sustained reduction in crime: crime is down 39 per cent. since 1997, the chances of being a victim are the lowest for a generation and adult reoffending fell by 23 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. Those statistics are in no small part a tribute to the entire criminal justice system and, in particular, to the work done by staff in the prison system. I therefore pay tribute to staff at Wellingborough prison and across the system for the often difficult and sometimes dangerous work that they do. They often deal, on a daily basis, with difficulties that many of us would find difficult to handle on a one-off basis.
Our approach to building on our achievements was outlined in a statement made to the House on 27 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and in the accompanying document. An element of the policy is to increase the use of competition in prisons and probation. We are using competition to challenge existing service providers-in the public and private sectors-to improve performance, to encourage new entrants into the prison and probation markets, if that can increase efficiency and innovation, and to provide better outcomes for communities and the taxpayer.
Initially, we sought to deliver the efficiency improvements through the work force modernisation reform package, which was based on a three-year pay deal for staff in public prisons-it was worth more than 10 per cent. in cash terms over the period-linked to necessary but limited reforms. Despite the fact that initial negotiations appeared successful, the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association turned down that negotiated deal. We made it clear to all the trade unions with which we negotiated that the rejection of work force reform would lead to accelerated market testing, and through that programme, we are now seeking to deliver some of the required efficiencies.
A 2005 Department of Trade and Industry report on market-based approaches found that introducing competition among suppliers can lead to lower costs and better quality services. I am not about to argue that one sector or another, whether the public or private, as in this case, always does better than the other-that would be an ideological approach that I do not take. However, we need continuous improvement. Greater competition in the market for prison services will ensure an impetus to improvement, and we shall select the organisations best able to deliver our services efficiently, whatever sector they are from. That is part of what the competition policy is about.
The hon. Gentleman sought some background on how the decision to market-test at Wellingborough was reached. All public sector prisons were considered on the grounds of performance and cost. A shortlist of candidates was produced containing all prisons either seen as high cost, relative to similar prisons, or where performance was rated at level 2 or lower for two or more consecutive quarters according to our published performance ratings. He made some fair comments about Wellingborough prison's performance difficulties over the past few years and highlighted some findings in the most recently published report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that a level 2 establishment is defined as "requiring development". In general, the National Offender Managements Service views such an establishment as one that is basically stable, secure and providing a limited but decent regime, but that is experiencing significant problems in meeting targets and/or major operational problems. In quarter 4 of 2008-09, there were 18 prisons at level 4, 98 at level 3, 17 at level 2 and none at level 1. In addition, 48 prisons were identified as being relatively high cost, with potential savings of £500,000 or more available over the spending review period. Wellingborough prison was assessed as providing less than that in potential savings.
HMP Wellingborough has, however, been assessed as a level 2 establishment for seven consecutive quarters since quarter 2 of 2007-08-more than 21 months.
Further evidence was available that improvements are necessary at Wellingborough. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons. In August 2008, the chief inspector described Wellingborough as one of the weakest prisons recently inspected. The report states that nearly half the prisoners surveyed feel unsafe, owing to the high level of bullying, and that Wellingborough fails to provide the basics of training and resettlement, which should be at the core of its work. The hon. Gentleman very fairly set out some of those conclusions.
The final selection from the shortlist-whether based on high costs relative to similar prisons, poor performance or a combination of the two-was made on the basis of a number of operational criteria. Those included the future direction of our capacity programme, potential market interest in the establishments and the location and condition of the prison. On that basis, Wellingborough and Birmingham prisons were selected as the leading candidates to be market-tested this year. I want to make it clear that we view competition not as a punishment tool, but as a way to encourage improvement. From what the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that the poor inspection report and ongoing low rating have provided a spur to improvement at Wellingborough prison. That is good. The public sector provider could mount a bid. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we encourage and welcome strong public sector bids in these competitions, and I hope that Wellingborough prison can make a bid that offers the greatest value for money. If it does, it will be awarded the contract.
I shall answer some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. I hope that I have already answered his question about what specific criteria were used to determine whether HMP Wellingborough should be market-tested. He also asked whether, if a prison rated as poorly performing improves in every area, it could be inspected again before the competition policy is applied. We have announced a market test at Wellingborough and Birmingham, and to be true to our word, we need to go through with them to show that we are serious about the competition policy, which we are. I am encouraged that, as he said, improvements are being made at Wellingborough and that a great effort is being made. That will improve the public sector provider's chance of winning the competition-if it makes the best bid, it will win the competition.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the bidding process for taking over the contract to run the prison will close. I cannot give him a precise date, but it will be launched later this year, and I expect it to take about eight months to complete the process and announce a winner. He also asked what information the private and public sectors have to provide to have a bid accepted and whether the information is the same for bidders from both sectors. All bidders will be required to submit information on the same areas, and the information requirements will be set out in the information-to-tender document, which will be published after the launch of the competition. It will be clear at that stage precisely what is being asked and what kind of information will be sought. There will be a level playing field in that sense.
The hon. Gentleman asked how, if the local management team wins the bid, it will operate. Will it be run independently or go back to being run as part of
NOMS? If a public service provider wins the competition, the ongoing relationship with NOMS and the relevant director of offender management will be managed through a service level agreement, which is very similar to the way in which-
John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We now move to the next debate.
Adults with Learning Difficulties
1 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) (Lab): I want to raise some vital funding issues that could have a profound impact on the care and support of nearly 1 million of our fellow citizens who are learning disabled or who have significant learning difficulties. Many of them are in a vulnerable position. We have a particular duty to speak up for such people because, in many cases, they are not in a position to do so for themselves.
Although the funding pressures were drawn to my attention by Oxfordshire county council, which provided me with an excellent briefing, their impact will be felt throughout England, especially in those areas in which the council is on the floor of the revenue support grant settlement. The difficulties to which I refer arise from the transfer, from 2011-12 onwards, of social care funding for adults with learning disabilities from the NHS to councils, which have a responsibility for social services. Such difficulties are compounded by the local government revenue support system and by the rising need for support for learning disabled people.
The transfer itself, the initial stages of which were due to complete last month, is right in principle; learning disability is not an illness. The individuals concerned require varying degrees of domiciliary, community and accommodation support, and it is right that such support is provided through the social care system. The transfer of responsibility covers the wide range of social care services, such as domiciliary and personal support, training and counselling services, day centres and day services, short-break centres, supported accommodation and residential care. I understand that primary care trusts will continue to fund and commission NHS specialist staff, such as community nurses, psychiatrists and speech and language therapists, as well as assessment and treatment services.
There is a problem with the financial aspects of the transfer. For example, what level of provision will be made at the point of transfer, and how will it increase in future years? The initial amount to be transferred is being agreed between each local authority and the local PCT, and is largely based on historic expenditure. I understand that that has been difficult to work out, and that it varies across the country. Moreover, the transfer is taking place from an NHS budget that has increased more rapidly than local authority financing and is likely to continue to increase at a faster rate than that of local authorities. Even if the initial transfer is at a fair and adequate level-it is not hard to see how that might be the subject of dispute-the danger is that the budget could be squeezed in future years because the combination of Government and council tax payer funding cannot keep pace with the required growth in costs. That problem is particularly severe for councils such as Oxfordshire which are on the floor of the revenue support grant.
Figures given to me by Oxfordshire show the scale of the problem. Initial estimates suggest that some £21.5 million or more will transfer initially from the PCT to the council. However, if we use a GDP deflator of 2.75 per cent. to predict inflationary costs in future years, that cost will rise to £23 million in 2012-13 and £24.7 million in 2013-14. In practice, the cost pressures are likely to rise significantly faster than that because
more learning disabled children are surviving at birth and, happily, more of those who do are living into adulthood. Now, if the cost has to be met from within general revenue support and council tax funding, the amount available to pay for it in Oxfordshire will only go up by 1 per cent. a year because Oxfordshire, like a number of other authorities, is on the grant floor. Therefore, even if the transfer is adequate in year one, in year two, in Oxfordshire's case, there will be a shortfall of £1.3 million, and one of £2.8 million in year three. The gap will continue to widen by £1.8 million a year.
The implications of that can be translated into a council tax pressure, which Oxfordshire estimates would amount to 2.6 per cent. over and above the council tax the authority would otherwise plan, or £33 a year on a band D council tax payer, and that would go on rising by at least £13 a year-probably significantly more-because of demographic pressures, to which I referred earlier.
I understand that the Department of Health has done some work and come up with similar conclusions. It talks of the risk of substantial gaps in funding, big variations across the country and particular problems facing social services authorities that are on the revenue support grant floor. There is a real danger here of us drifting to disaster in the funding of services for learning disabled adults. The consequence could be a mix of cuts in services, which would be totally wrong and unacceptable given that such services are already hardly adequate in many areas; cuts in other services that will already be under pressure, not least in Oxfordshire by the council's decision to cut staff by 10 per cent.; and significant increases in council tax. The only fair way to resolve the situation is to protect the funding of services for learning disabled adults by accompanying the transfer-from NHS to local councils-with a permanent specific grant, ideally based on need and not simply the initial transfer value, and increasing that each year, taking into account increasing need.
I know that idea runs counter to the generally sensible vogue for removing ring fences and specific grants to local councils and putting the money into general revenue support grants, so that councils can make decisions based on local priorities. However, in this case, it is not only justified but necessary if we are to ensure that funding for support for learning disabled adults is to be provided at an adequate level.
One other option would be to ensure that the revenue support grant settlement took full account of the needs of adults with learning disabilities, but that would not be easy to resolve. If the Government were to go down that route, there would have to be some particular provision for councils that are on the revenue support grant floor and subject to the squeeze that I described earlier.
I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister can make the following assurances. The first is that the Government are on top of the issue and looking with urgency at how it can be resolved. I know that, when policy issues involve significant sums of money, more than one Department and have inherent complexity, it often takes longer to sort them out. This challenge needs to be gripped and sorted, and I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us that that is happening and that he will go from this debate and talk to his Secretary of State and senior officials to ensure that it is.
Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that there will be close consultation between organisations representing learning disabled people, such as Mencap, other interested parties, such as the Local Government Association, and councils, such as my own in Oxfordshire, which are potentially so adversely affected. I hope overall that he can assure us that some means by which to protect funding for services for learning disabled adults will be found.
The Government will today set out important options for the future of social care, and it is crucial that the needs of learning disabled people are not only remembered but at the forefront of our thinking. The challenge of future funding must be turned into an opportunity properly to fund and support the quality of life of learning disabled people. I look forward to the Minister telling us the Government's plans to do just that.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |