House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 04 Dec 2013 (pt 0003)

Table 3: 2012-13
		Q1²		Q2²		Q3²		Q4²		Annual²
		Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)
Altcourse	Failure to comply with procedures	205	⁶—	15	⁶—	10	⁶—	50	⁶—	92	⁶—
	Incidents	20	⁶—	60	⁶—	50	⁶—	30	⁶—	529	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	225	35,168	75	0	60	0	80	0	621	28,740

Forest Bank	Failure to comply with procedures	60	⁶—	70	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Incidents	25	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	20	⁶—	185	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	85	0	70	0	0	0	20	0	185	0

Bronzefield	Failure to comply with procedures	120	⁶—	80	⁶—	70	⁶—	35	⁶—	110	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	93.5	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	25	⁶—	15	⁶—	15	⁶—	15	⁶—	415	⁶—
	Total	145	16,478	95	4,580	85	2,169	50	0	618.5	78,504

Peterborough	Failure to comply with procedures	115	⁶—	40	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—	121	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	15	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	125	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	115	1,360	55	0	20	0	0	0	246	0

Ashfield—YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	10	⁶—	35	⁶—	5	⁶—	5	⁶—	35	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	30	⁶—	20	⁶—	112	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	20	⁶—
	Total	10	0	35	0	35	0	25	0	167	6,889

Parc—Part YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	15	⁶—	65	⁶—	5	⁶—	200	⁶—	27	⁶—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 715W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 716W

	Incidents	60	⁶—	20	⁶—	40	⁶—	60	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	75	0	85	0	45	0	260	16,519	27	0

Dovegate	Failure to comply with procedures	85	⁶—	35	⁶—	10	⁶—	40	⁶—	80	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	85	0	35	0	20	0	40	0	80	0

Rye Hill	Failure to comply with procedures	730	⁶—	295	⁶—	200	⁶—	105	⁶—	288	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	275	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	60	⁶—
	Total	730	99,775	295	32,005	200	16,961	115	5,059	623	57,607

Lowdham Grange	Failure to comply with procedures	135	⁶—	105	⁶—	50	⁶—	70	⁶—	198	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	135	0	105	0	50	0	90	0	198	0

Doncaster	Failure to comply with procedures	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	—	⁶—	—	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	—	⁶—	—	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	13	⁶—	3	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Total	0	0	0	0	13	5,672	3	1,260	^4,6—	^4,6—

Wolds	Failure to comply with procedures	125	⁶—	455	⁶—	455	⁶—	220	⁶—	203	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	40	⁶—	20	⁶—	13	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	20	⁶—
	Total	125	583	455	24,657	495	27,648	240	9,075	236	4,279

Oakwood	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	7	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	0	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	90	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	97	45,299	^4,6—	^4,6—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 717W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 718W

Thameside	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	66	⁶—	86	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	0	⁶—	255	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	55	⁶—	79	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	121	263	420	28,253	^4,6—	^4,6—

Birmingham	Failure to comply with procedures	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	0	⁶—
	Incidents	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	135	⁶—
	Total	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	135	95,135
¹ Total points accrued. Note: data excludes credit points awarded. Financial penalties only apply if baseline targets exceeded. ² Periods relate to contractual periods not financial periods. ³ Prison not in operational service. ⁴ Performance measure not applicable. ⁵ No data. ⁶ Indicates brace.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when the contract for each privately run prison in England and Wales was signed; when each such contract began; when each such contract expires; and what the annual cost of each such contract (a) has been to date and (b) will be throughout its duration. [175433]

Jeremy Wright: The following table sets out the requested information for each privately run prison in England and Wales. It is not possible to provide the annual costs of each contract in previous years or in future years due to several factors:

the management of these prisons in most cases has changed from one Government Department to another and the annual cost information for individual establishments has not always been passed onto the new Government Department.

also these contracts are subject to annual indexation and from time to time variations occur which either increase or decrease the cost of the establishments concerned.

As such it is almost impossible to estimate what the final cost for each establishment might be over its contract term. In consequence we have indicated the original estimated cost for each establishment and the term of each contract.

Specific data relating to private prison contracts
Existing contracted estate prisons	Type of contract	Signed date	Actual contractual opening date	Contract end date (or as amended)	Contract duration/term (years)	Approx. total contract value(£ million)¹	Certified normal accommodation (CNA)²
HMP Altcourse	PFI	20 December 1995	1 December 1997	30 May 2023	25	919	780
HMP Ashfield	PFI	1 July 1998	1 November 1999	31 October 2024	25	658	400
HMP Birmingham	M&M	13 April 2011	1 October 2011	30 September 2026	15	453	1,093
HMP Bronzefield	PFI	20 December 2002	17 June 2004	16 June 2029	25	757	470
HMP Doncaster	M&M	13 April 2011	1 October 2011	30 September 2026	15	368	743
HMP Dovegate	PFI	27 September 1999	9 July 2001	8 July 2026	25	782	1,060
HMP Forest Bank	PFI	6 July 1998	20 January 2000	19 January 2025	25	659	1,064
HMP Lowdham Grange	PFI	7 November 1996	16 February 1998	15 February 2023	25	484	888
HMP Oakwood	M&M	13 April 2011	24 April 2012	23 April 2027	15	349	1,605
HMP Pare	PFI	4 January 1996	15 December 1997	14 December 2022	25	880	1,170
HMP Peterborough	PFI	14 February 2003	28 March 2005	27 March 2030	25	918	840

4 Dec 2013 : Column 719W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 720W

HMP Rye Hill	PFI	23 July 1999	21 January 2001	20 January 2026	25	549	600
HMP Thameside (formally Belmarsh West)	PFI	30 June 2010	30 March 2012⁴	31 December 2036	25	931	600
HMP Wolds³	MT	5 January 2003	5 January 2003	30 June 2013	10	90	320
¹ Original Treasury or MOJ projection. ² These figures vary from time to time. ³ This contract has expired and returned to the public sector July 2013. ⁴ Fully open (CFOD) 1 June 2012. Notes: 1. Key to contract types: PFI = Private Finance Initiative M&M = Manage and Maintain MT = Market Test 2. The “Approx. total contract value” varies from prison to prison due to many different factors, e.g. when the prison was competed, the cost from the contractor concerned, the footprint and land area of the prison, its prisoner capacity. PFI contracts tend to be more expensive since the contractor had to build the prison in the first place. M&M and MT prisons are less expensive due to having shorter terms, etc. 3. Care must be taken in considering the comparison between private and public sector costs for the following reasons: a) The public and private groups of prisons are not homogenous groups in terms of prison category, size, or age and these factors may have a greater impact on average costs than whether the prisons are public or private sector. b) The private sector contracts may have different responsibilities for provision of health or education services than public sector prisons. This will affect their relative costs. c) The different financing methods of PFI prisons mean that in an individual year the resource costs of private and public sector prisons are not directly comparable. d) The costs are based on resource expenditure recorded in NOMS Annual Accounts. The PFI prisons are on balance sheet, which means that the element of the private contractors' charges related to the capital cost is not included in the unit costs, while depreciation of buildings is included. Following government accounting rules, the charge against the resource budget is not calculated in the same way. e) The PFI prisons costs include a charge for interest on capital costs. There is no equivalent charge in the public sector costs.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what financial penalties for what reasons have been imposed on each operator of privately run prisons in England and Wales since May 2010. [175434]

Jeremy Wright: Performance points accrued, reasons for performance points accrual and financial remedies applied for quarterly measured and annually measured performance points at private prisons for contract periods 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are detailed in tables 1 to 3. Quarterly and annual performance measures are calculated on differing criteria and are not comparable.

It is not possible to specify data from May 2010 as performance reporting is based on quarterly and annual submissions in line with contract-specific timelines.

Performance points and financial remedies criteria will vary from contract to contract, particularly between PFI and Manage and Maintain Contracts, as well as newer, amended and older PFT contracts. For example, actual performance measures, method of calculation, performance point weightings, credit point weightings, performance point targets etc. may vary from contract to contract.

The data presented in tables 1 to 3 are based on total number of performance points accrued for the relevant periods. This does not take into account credit points awarded to contractors and offset against total performance points for the period. Financial remedies are only applicable when performance point baseline targets are exceeded for the period.

Due to a changeover in systems in 2012-13, some financial data reported for previous periods are incomplete.

It is important to note that performance points are essentially about operational efficiency, and do not represent a risk to public safety. At no point has public safety been at risk. There are no significant historical trends in the attached figures. Privately managed prisons achieve the majority of their contractual targets with proportionately low levels of performance points and financial remedies applied as a result. The data for each contract is closely monitored by MOJ staff and any emerging or sustained performance failures are discussed in detail with the relevant provider in order to rectify performance shortfalls as quickly as possible.

Table 1: 2010-11
		Q1²		Q2²		Q3²		Q4²		Annual²
		Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)
Altcourse	Failure to comply with procedures	70	⁶—	5	⁶—	130	⁶—	5	⁶—	257	⁶—
	Incidents	10	⁶—	0	⁶—	30	⁶—	10	⁶—	509	⁶—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 721W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 722W

	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	660	⁶—
	Total	80	0	5	0	160	46,503	15	0	1,426	97,497

Forest Bank	Failure to comply with procedures	20	⁶—	50	⁶—	10	⁶—	55	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	164	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	20	30,000	50	0	10	13,881	55	4,119	164	0

Bronzefield	Failure to comply with procedures	65	⁶—	185	⁶—	20	⁶—	130	⁶—	75	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	112.5	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	15	⁶—	10	⁶—	15	⁶—	135	⁶—
	Total	65	0	200	—⁵	30	0	145	⁵—	322.5	⁵—

Peterborough	Failure to comply with procedures	170	⁶—	150	⁶—	250	⁶—	60	⁶—	192.5	⁶—
	Incidents	110	⁶—	0	⁶—	5	⁶—	5	⁶—	418	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	280	—⁵	150	0	255	—⁵	65	0	610.5	—⁵

Ashfield—YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	0	⁶—	5	⁶—	0	⁶—	30	⁶—	10	⁶—
	Incidents	40	⁶—	0	⁶—	50	⁶—	110	⁶—	82	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	40	⁶—
	Total	40	400	5	2,635	50	0	140	—⁵	132	0

Parc—Part YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	15	⁶—	10	⁶—	25	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Incidents	30	⁶—	20	⁶—	30	⁶—	10	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	45	0	30	0	55	0	30	0	0	⁵—

Dovegate	Failure to comply with procedures	10	⁶—	20	⁶—	40	⁶—	70	⁶—	60	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	289	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	10	0	20	0	40	0	70	0	349	32,947

Rye Hill	Failure to comply with procedures	170	⁶—	85	⁶—	235	⁶—	100	⁶—	526	⁶—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 723W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 724W

	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	20	⁶—	255	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	65	⁶—
	Total	170	10,708	85	0	245	21,595	120	3,795	846	72,525

Lowdham Grange	Failure to comply with procedures	35	⁶—	35	⁶—	40	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	35	0	35	0	40	0	20	0	0	0

Doncaster	Failure to comply with procedures	15	⁶—	30	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	65	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	20	⁶—	10	⁶—	455	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	15	0	40	0	20	0	10	0	520	0

Wolds	Failure to comply with procedures	70	⁶—	55	⁶—	60	⁶—	200	⁶—	81.5	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	50	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	22	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	62.5	⁶—
	Total	70	0	105	0	60	0	200	5,174	166	0

Oakwood	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

Thameside	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

Birmingham	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 725W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 726W

Table 2: 2011-12
		Q1²		Q2²		Q3²		Q4²		Annual²
		Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)	Points¹	Value (£)
Altcourse	Failure to comply with procedures	10	⁶—	0	⁶—	100	⁶—	0	⁶—	62	⁶—
	Incidents	20	⁶—	40	⁶—	80	⁶—	60	⁶—	481	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	30	0	40	0	180	0	60	0	543	—⁵

Forest Bank	Failure to comply with procedures	10	⁶—	10	⁶—	35	⁶—	10	⁶—	100	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	150	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	10	0	10	0	35	0	10	0	250	0

Bronzefield	Failure to comply with procedures	65	⁶—	30	⁶—	125	⁶—	50	⁶—	145	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	0	⁶—	119.5	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	25	⁶—	35	⁶—	15	⁶—	15	⁶—	25	⁶—
	Total	90	—⁵	65	0	150	—⁵	65	0	289.5	—⁵

Peterborough	Failure to comply with procedures	110	⁶—	155	⁶—	130	⁶—	35	⁶—	251.5	⁶—
	Incidents	10	⁶—	5	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—	40	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	30	⁶—	40	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	399	⁶—
	Total	150	0	200	—⁵	150	0	35	0	690.5	—⁵

Ashfield—YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	90	⁶—	10	⁶—	5	⁶—	10	⁶—	20	⁶—
	Incidents	40	⁶—	20	⁶—	20	⁶—	10	⁶—	217	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	30	⁶—
	Total	130	13,882	30	0	25	0	20	0	267	—⁵

Parc—Part YJB	Failure to comply with procedures	40	⁶—	65	⁶—	210	⁶—	105	⁶—	26	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	40	⁶—	70	⁶—	30	⁶—	11	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	70	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	110	0	105	0	280	—⁵	135	0	37	0

Dovegate	Failure to comply with procedures	85	⁶—	65	⁶—	45	⁶—	55	⁶—	40	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	214	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	85	0	65	0	45	0	55	0	254	10,566

4 Dec 2013 : Column 727W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 728W


Rye Hill	Failure to comply with procedures	200	⁶—	370	⁶—	115	⁶—	590	⁶—	341	⁶—
	Incidents	10	⁶—	0	⁶—	20	⁶—	0	⁶—	296	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	195	⁶—
	Total	210	5,681	370	23,760	135	0	590	57,796	832	78,223

Lowdham Grange	Failure to comply with procedures	120	⁶—	125	⁶—	290	⁶—	115	⁶—	99	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—
	Total	120	0	125	0	290	20,188	115	0	99	0

Doncaster	Failure to comply with procedures	75	⁶—	10	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Incidents	10	⁶—	30	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—
	Total	85	0	40	0	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—	^4,6—

Wolds	Failure to comply with procedures	80	⁶—	80	⁶—	50	⁶—	100	⁶—	131	⁶—
	Incidents	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	10	⁶—	50	⁶—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	0	⁶—	45	⁶—
	Total	80	0	80	0	50	0	110	0	226	1,370

Oakwood	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

Thameside	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Total	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

Birmingham	Failure to comply with procedures	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Incidents	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—
	Failure to comply with prison regime	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—	^3,6—

4 Dec 2013 : Column 729W

4 Dec 2013 : Column 730W

Total

^3,6—

Next Section

Index

Home Page

Primary navigation

Footer links

Site search

Primary navigation

Footer links