Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the total additional capital spend on physical security was in each of the prisons where performance was found to be of serious concern in the Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2017/18 in the last six months of (a) 2017 and (b) 2018.
HM Prison and Probation Service operates a Performance and Assurance Framework to identify and support prisons where performance is of concern.
The tables below provide figures for the total additional capital spend on physical security in each prison where performance was found to be of serious concern in the Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2017/18. Figures are provided for capital spend on physical security in the last six months of both the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years (Table A) and the 2017 and 2018 calendar years (Table B).
Table A – Total capital expenditure on physical security | ||
| Oct-Mar Spend (£k) | |
Establishment | 2017/18 | 2018/19 |
Bedford | 0 | 0 |
Birmingham* | 0 | 213.5 |
Bristol | 355.2 | 0 |
Chelmsford | 99.7 | 0 |
Exeter | 0 | 0 |
Lindholme | 0 | 0 |
Liverpool | 0 | 0 |
The Mount | 112.8 | 0 |
Nottingham | 0 | 58.9 |
Onley | 0 | 0 |
Peterborough* | 42.3 | 0 |
Portland | 0 | 0 |
Wandsworth | 0 | 0 |
Winchester | 64.2 | 44.8 |
Wormwood Scrubs | 108.1 | 33.1 |
Total | 782.3 | 350.3 |
* privately run prisons 2017/18
Table B – Total capital expenditure on physical security | ||
| Jul-Dec Spend (£k) | |
Establishment | 2017 | 2018 |
Bedford | 0 | 0 |
Birmingham* | 0 | 0 |
Bristol | 0 | 0 |
Chelmsford | 0 | 0 |
Exeter | 0 | 0 |
Lindholme | 0 | 0 |
Liverpool | 0 | 0 |
The Mount | 22.8 | 0 |
Nottingham | 0 | 0 |
Onley | 0 | 0 |
Peterborough* | 0 | 42.3 |
Portland | 0 | 0 |
Wandsworth | 0 | 0 |
Winchester | 0 | 0 |
Wormwood Scrubs | 0 | 0 |
Total | 22.8 | 42.3 |
* privately run prisons 2017/18
Note that the figures represent expenditure on items above the capitalisation threshold of £10,000 recorded against capital budgets. Figures are subject to rounding.