Written evidence from G4S (PPP 45)

About G4S Custodial and Detention Services:

G4S is the leading global integrated security company specialising in the provision of security products, services and solutions. The group is active in more than 120 countries, and is the largest employer quoted on the London Stock Exchange with more than 618,000 employees.

G4S operate five adult establishments in the UK on behalf of the Ministry of Justice:

HMP Altcourse

HMP Birmingham

HMP Oakwood

HMP Parc

HMP Rye Hill

In our work in this area, there are 2,820 members of our team, who are responsible for the custody, safety and rehabilitation of c.6,500 offenders. 

Our work in this sector began in 1992, with the very first privately managed prison, HMP Wolds. There are now 13 privately run establishments in England and Wales, out of a total prison estate of 131 establishments.

Through our time working in this area, we have been proud to operate at the vanguard of many changes in the custodial landscape of England and Wales:

• We opened the first privately managed prison, HMP Wolds, in 1992, after the very first competition process.
• We successfully mobilised the first prison to move from the public sector management to private management, HMP Birmingham, in 2012. 
• We have also successfully demobilised a prison in the opposite direction, HMP Wolds, in 2012, after our contract to manage the prison ended.

G4S is pleased to be given the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s Inquiry into Prisons: Planning and Policies. We look forward providing further oral evidence to the committee.

Summary

G4S is proud of its work running five prisons on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and believes that real improvements and efficiencies have been achieved over the last 22 years.

With the Inquiry’s terms of reference in mind we have one central point to make. Current policy is to create ‘horizontal’ responsibilities across several institutions for areas such as healthcare, education and training. While well intentioned this is serving to undermine the ability of Prison governors[1] to govern effectively and to be responsible and accountable for everything that goes on within their prison. Poorly performing governors in prisons, in either the public or private sectors, should be removed. Good governors should be allowed to govern.

We would be happy to expand on this theme during the oral evidence session.

Response to each of the Terms of Reference

1. The Government’s approach to achieving efficiencies across the prison estate, including the public sector benchmarking programme and the use of competition:

• G4S is a strong advocate of competition as a means of delivering efficiencies and creating innovations and constructive tension in the industry. 
• In HMP Birmingham this can be evidenced by comments made by the Chief Inspector in his last two reports and a longitudinal study by Professor Alison Liebling of Cambridge University.   Birmingham is an excellent case example of how establishments can be developed and cultures changed through the constructive use of competition.
• One of our concerns about the secession of the prisons competition programme is that a major agent of change has been lost, which may well restrict the efficiencies and innovations that the government could gain from the reintroduction of the programme. 
• As part of our contractual responsibility G4S Custodial and Detention Services have conducted a benchmark programme as per the Ministry of Justice Specification, Benchmarking & Costing Exercise (SBC), in the same manner as the public sector.  We have realigned our delivery in line with those requirements, which has in turn provided savings to the taxpayer.
• As part of this we have reduced some costs and have shared those savings with NOMS thus generating additional savings for the taxpayer.

Is the newly proposed outsourcing of elements of a prison (FM etc) going to deliver the required efficiency saving?

• Our belief is that SBC will not supply the required savings.  Additionally, it will place greater demands on governors in the public sector in the management of an increased number of subcontractors.  This is experience which we ourselves have in dealing with subcontractors (let by NOMS) within two of our establishments, and managing that interface is both time consuming and demanding.  We have concerns that the management of a larger number of contractors would distract prison management teams from their core role.

2. The impact of lower operational costs on prison regimes, access to education, training and other purposeful activity, the physical environment, safety and security:

• Lower operational costs do not necessarily restrict access to regime activities, as we have demonstrated at HMP Birmingham.  The competition to operate the establishment identified significant savings, whilst improving the regime (as previously highlighted). 
• We have also invested heavily in enhancing the security of the HMP Birmingham, through the introduction of additional fences, to restrict the problem of drug ‘throw-overs’.  The major issue is that ad-hoc reductions or changes in operating procedures can negatively influence the delivery of regimes, whereas the whole prison approach necessitates cost reductions, but increased regime delivery. That delivery is contractual and this brings safeguards to prisoners and staff as well as challenges to the operator. 
• We have also invested in innovation, for example G4S has introduced bodyworn cameras for managers within all of our prisons.  The cameras are operated, following a warning, to record incidents.  The recorded footage may be used as part of disciplinary or court proceedings.  As such, when used, the cameras have led to numerous successful de-escalations, and prevention of, incidents. 
• G4S first introduced the cameras in 2012 as part of our then-new contracts at HMP Birmingham and HMP Oakwood.  The cameras proved to be so successful that we then introduced them at all of our sites. We have demonstrated this innovation to both managers and unions in the public sector.  Our understanding is that there is an intention to roll these out across public sector prisons.

3. The costs and benefits of the new-for-old prison capacity programme and the Government’s intent to reduce overcrowding:

• There is no doubt that modern prison design both enhances security and safety and reduces running costs.  The capital costs involved are significantly reduced when the ongoing and increasing cost of maintenance backlog of old and more inefficient establishments is factored in.  Inevitably there are a range of funding options that could be and are being considered by central government.   For every Prison Custody Officer (PCO) saved through better design, £750,000 is saved through the lifetime of a 25 year contract.
• The £12,000[2] cost per prisoner of HMP Oakwood is an example of the combination of modern design together with effective operating procedures.  The modern design of the prison gives clearer sight lines on wings, which give greater safety and the subdivision of the large housing blocks into smaller operating units, helps to develop a community style approach.  That together with the inevitable economies of scale with a larger prison, clearly illustrate what can be achieved in the new generation of prisons.
• In short, the benefits of new establishments are (i) lower maintenance costs (ii) lower utility costs (iii) Improved accommodation.  There are, however, costs of new establishments are (i) snagging issues with a new building (ii) new staff (iii) general bedding-in period of an establishment. These costs are short-term issues, however.  The benefits described above are long term savings and benefits, which will last long beyond the memory of the challenges an establishment has had during the early period of its life. HMP Parc in Wales is an excellent example of this journey from a challenging start to now being one of the best run prisons in the UK.
• In addition to running new build prisons, it is also possible to turn around older establishments. We have for example made significant financial investment at HMP Birmingham since taking over the contract in 2012.  In part this has been necessitated by the condition of the buildings we inherited and the age of that estate.  It is clear however that further development of old estate is less effective than replacing it with new estates. 

4. The ongoing re-configuration of the prison estate, including the extent to which prisons are suitably located and accessible to visitors, and the implications of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme:

• We absolutely support the intentions of the current reconfiguration exercise.  However, it is important that we are all realistic in that some prisoners would be placed further away from home than is desirable, because of the distribution of the current estate and attendant security restrictions.
• An example of the limitations is the reroling of Rye Hill.  The prison has been changed to a category B sex offender only accommodation.  Whilst this enables specialist provision to be utilised at the most efficient cost, it will mean that for a period of the offenders sentence, some will be located at a distance from their home. This illustrates the balance that always has to be achieved, between effectiveness, security/safety and the needs of the offender. 
• In the early stages of custody and pre-release we believe that offenders are preferably located closer to home. However, during the main period of custody, other issues should be taken into consideration.  For example, the offender’s criminogenic or health needs.

5. The extent to which the Government’s aspiration for “working prisons” has been achieved.

• G4S have embraced the NOMS 1-3-1 Code of Practice.
• We continue to develop good working relationships with SMEs at all of our establishments.  We want to ensure that prisoners gain access to real work to enhance their opportunities for employment post release. This is a part of our ethos within our establishments.
• This ethos enables us to entrench our establishments within the local community and assist SMEs e.g. a birdhouse project at HMP Oakwood.
• Our business strategy creates an environment that stimulates relationships with local businesses. This approach is based on open dialogue to support local and multi-national business units to establish and develop an innovative approach to extend and increase the quality of cooperation between the prison and local business. Such support can provide an alternative to off-shoring low skilled work/assembly and also provide SMEs with the opportunity to work collaboratively with G4S Prison Enterprise to enter new markets.

November 2014