A new briefing by the free market thinktank, Reform, sets out to reignite the debate about the role of the private sector in our prisons. The case for private prisons argues that the justice secretary Chris Grayling was wrong when he announced at the end of 2012 his decision to finish the rolling programme of prison contracting and pursue a "new approach" limiting already widespread competition to rehabilitation and ancillary services.
Making selective use of Ministry of Justice data to highlight "the superior performance by the private sector against comparable public sector prisons", Reform calls for the extension of prison competition through market testing, introducing fixed term contracts and increased flexibility over pay and conditions for all prisons.
The UK already has the most privatised prison system in Europe. In England and Wales there were 12,872 prisoners (15% of the prisoner population) held in private prisons as at 30 September 2012. This is a higher proportion than in the US, where the figure is around 9%. In addition, five more existing public prisons are to be privately managed. In a competition from which the prison service is now expressly excluded, contracts for HMPs Moorland, Hatfield, and Lindholme, combined as a South Yorkshire prison cluster, along with HMPs Castington and Acklington, also combined to form a new HMP Northumberland, will be awarded in 2013. As a result approximately 2,700 more prisoners will be held privately.
Since July 2011 the process of market testing alone had incurred £3.5 million of taxpayers' money by the end of September 2012. The government estimate for the total cost of tendering, evaluation, mobilisation and transition of prisons is £10.7 million. Given the exorbitant costs of market testing, and a lack of clear, objective evidence to show the benefits of privatisation, ministers should be very wary of opening up the running of the prison estate to further competition.
Criticised by the prisons minister, Jeremy Wright, for its 'simplistic analysis', this report draws on figures that mask decidedly mixed results - some private prisons have proved innovative and effective but others have been criticised by the Chief Inspector for their high staff turnover, tendency to cut corners and weaknesses in security. From official facts and figures, it is almost impossible to compare the performance and reoffending rates of one establishment with another, partly because prisons hold different categories of offenders and also because prisoners often serve their sentences in a number of different jails.
According to the National Audit Office, the relative inexperience of staff means that some private prisons can struggle to create a safe environment for prisoners. Private prison contracts in England and Wales are shared between just three companies: Serco, Sodexo and G4S. Overall the costs of private prisons per place are higher than public prisons for most types of establishment. Despite this, the average ratio of prison staff to prisoners is usually lower in private prisons, and staff generally receive a lower level of basic pay than their public sector colleagues. In 2011 the average gross salary for a private sector prison officer was 23% less than public sector equivalents.
In the main, private prisons are more overcrowded and less safe than their public counterparts. Private prisons have held a higher percentage of their prisoners in overcrowded accommodation than public sector prisons every year for the past 14 years. In 2011-12 the private prisons average was 30.2%, compared to an average of 23.3% in the public sector. Forest Bank, Doncaster and Altcourse have particularly high rates of overcrowding, with 39.8%, 58.6% and 69.8% of prisoners held in overcrowded accommodation respectively.
When government is trying to get to grips with unacceptably high reoffending rates and the pressing need to reduce costly prison numbers, it makes no sense to open up to market forces and risk growing vested interest. In business terms, surely the aim is to shrink, not expand, the market.
In America, private prison contractors have been major contributors to public policy organisations that have successfully advanced tough-on-crime legislation and promoted free-market principles. Private companies in the US have on occasions sought to manipulate the legal system directly. In the kids for cash scandal, Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp, a private prison company, was reported to have been found guilty of paying two judges $2.6m to send 2,000 children to their prisons. Less vivid an example - but still a matter of concern - in the UK was the resistance voiced by some private contractors, on grounds of cost, to the inclusion of prisons within the ambit of the Corporate Manslaughter Act.
Privatisation raises ethical questions about the nature and role of imprisonment in our society. Loss of liberty is the most extreme form of punishment we have. It has to be well regulated and managed and must meet exacting standards. People in prison should always be treated with decency and respect. Any arrangements for commissioning and contracting must ensure proper oversight and full accountability.
While privatisation could help curb any remaining restrictive practices, it is no panacea to the problems of our overcrowded, usually invisible and too often ineffective prison system.
Stella Creasy: Be Part of One Billion Rising, Be Part of Saying Enough Is Enough
Private prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prison privatisation should be a national scandal | Chris Poyner ...
The prison service is not allowed to match private bidders and inexperienced cheap help will drive profits? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The existing institutional knowledge base is somehow worthless? Who do you think is going to hire the existing institutional professionals? The private concerns.
You end up with prison staff paid 23% less, that tells you something about how pleased they are going to be.
Prison is time out and as such, all programmes should be taken out of prison and the money put into parenting, which I believe ,should be mandatory. Parent bring the kids into the world, it is their responsibility to ensure they do all they can to bring up kids who do not want to commit crime.
People who say prison should be hard are living in la la land as it is hard due to the type of people in prison and you will not find many who are prepared to be this way, it would soon wear them down. Prison should be where the inmates go out to the exercise yard during the day and in their cells at night and their basic needs met and nothing else.
As for privatising the prison service I wouldn't trust the government stats at all. Far too much is being privatised but funded by the taxpayer. If privatised, like our public utilities, prisons should not be funded by the taxpayer. The companies should be made to find work through which prisoners can pay for the service. As things stand the taxpayer is funding the profits and shareholders of these companies.
You also have the problems that it's a very simple system to corrupt, the US have had many problem in this area and I have no doubt there are many cases we simply don't know about here in the UK.
If we base the argument purely on re-offending rates we'll ignore the reason these people choose crime and will simply treat the cause, concentrate on stopping crime all together with targeted programs rather than targeting those already indulging in crime, over time it's more effective.
If we also consider the cost to run the service we need to look at the long term cost, not the short term, or in 20 years we'll be faced with massive cost, just like we now are with the health service.
Years ago the state-controlled industries like gas and electricity were inefficient and dominated by powerful trade unions. When these were privatised there may well have been short-term cost savings which can be called "efficiency gains" (I don't have the data).
But these organisations have proven not to be "dynamically" efficient, over time. The regulator has issued warnings over future energy supply. The individual companies have not acted strategically in the national interest. Witness the lack of UK companies bidding for new nuclear stations. I accept that the Climate Change Govt. policies are also responsible for the uncertain future.
And as you say, they are now shown to be inefficient in many ways, worst of all strategically The government claims to have an energy policy. What policy? It's allowed us to run down to threatened blackouts!
So I wouldn't trust any of these stats regards prisons. We taxpayers are going to have to suffer the annoyance. Private prisons should cost the taxpayer nothing. They're private organisations and should be pulling in enough work so prisoners can pay for the service themselves. A big rethink is needed.
Does anyone really believe that doing it for profit will make it better?