Brixton Prison (Hansard, 11 July 2000)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton

Last November my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Office (Mr Boateng) anounced in the wake of serious concern about conditions at Brixton Prison that it must be regarded as a failing institution and that there must be rapid and fundamental improvement. He made it clear that unless big improvements were made quickly Brixon could be subject to market testing. It is now over eight months since then and progress at the prison has been kept under close review.

He is not satisfied with the rate of progress being made, nor that the necessary improvements will be in place within 12 months. In particular, there has not been adequate improvement in compliance with standards, the quality of regime remains poor, there are serious concerns about commitment to equal opportunities within the prison, costs remain high and there is a lack of commitment to changes to free up resources to improve the regime. This judgment, accepted by the director general, has been confirmed in a recent visit by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, who found that, although certain improvements have been made in many areas, basic conditions, including cleanliness in the healthcare centre, were still unacceptable.

15WA

He has, therefore, reviewed the position and is clear that he would be failing in his public duty to all those at the prison, staff and prisoners alike, if we did not set a new path for the establishment. The director general agrees with him that there should be a market test of Brixton Prison. The new management team will be responsible for quickening the pace of improvement and for putting together an in-house bid, which will be judged alongside bids which will be invited from private sector operators.

Performance in responding to emergencies
	Target	Performance	Number of incidents
	1998–99 Local target time for responding to incidents requiring immediate response	1997–98 Local target time for responding to incidents requiring immediate response compared with 1998–99	1994–95 Local target time for responding to incidents requiring immediate response compared with 1998–99	Performance 1989–99	Difference in percentage points between 1997–98 and 1998–99	Difference in percentage points between 1994–95 and 1998–99	1998–99 The number of incidents	The number of incidents percentage change from 1997–98 to 1998–99	The number of incidents percentage change from 1994–95 to 1998–99
Avon and Somerset	15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	94%	down 2	down 1	34,619	32%	-5%
Bedfordshire	10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	89%	0	up 1	19,946	4%	843%
Cambridgeshire	10 minutes for urban areas and 18 minutes for rural areas	same target	same target	78%	down 4	up 2	29,987	11%	- 10%
Cheshire	90% within 15 minutes					not monitored			not monitored
		same target	same target	92%	0	for 94–95	57,362	-1%	for 94–95
Cleveland	90% within 10 minutes in urban areas and 90% within 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	89%	down 5	down 3	22,743	4%	139%
Cumbria	10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	93%	up 2	0	20,274	-6%	-30%
Derbyshire	10 minutes within urban areas and 20 minutes within rural areas and motorways	same target	same target	87%	0	0	56,688	-2%	17%
Devon and Cornwall	15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	88%	up 1	up 5	98,655	- 10%	7%
Dorset	10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	80%	0	up 21	24,786	3%	- 62%
Durham	10 minutes	same target	same target	92%	0	down 1	14,353	-6%	-8%
Essex	12 minutes in urban areas and 16 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	84%	down 2	down 2	67,490	-11%	-21%
Gloucestershire	10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas	same target	same target	91%	down 2	up 10	34,296	12%	-8%
Hampshire	15 minutes	same target	same target	95%	up 3	up 9	23,934	-75%	- 88%