David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, is giving ConservativeHome readers exclusive sight of a document that he has obtained from within the prison service which he believes suggests there will be "dangerous" cuts in staffing as part of a process to find "significant cost reductions".
The document, headed "Draft notice to staff" and subtitled "The management of vacancies and staff surplus" states:
"Over the next twelve months a number of changes will take place that are likely to have a significant effect on the number of staff at any workplace. Both national and regional headquarters of NOMS [National Offender Management Service] are being restructured bringing together the former NOMS and HMPS [Her Majesty's Prison Service] management structures above establishment level. This will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of staff required."
In reference to Ministry of Justice requirements for "more significant cost reductions", the document continues: "All of this is likely to lead to reductions in staff numbers" (although for whatever reason a manuscript amendment has put square brackets around this phrase).
Mr Davies says:
"It is a document that has been issued to senior managers in the prison service, and it clearly details the Government's intention to reduce the number of prison officers to save money at a time when crime is rising and they are promising 'Titan' prisons. Understaffing prisons is very dangerous for the prison officers who are left."
Justice questions take place in the Commons today, so perhaps there will be an opportunity for the issue to be raised directly with ministers there.
Whilst it is indeed right that the State should, like the country at large, also tighten its belt during these difficult economic times, it is surely paramount that no savings found by such agencies as the police and prison service put anyone in any danger. Hopefully such reassurances will be forthcoming.
I have reproduced the document below - click on it to enlarge it.
Jonathan Isaby
A timely and brave exposure! My thoughts also include the person brae enough to leak this document!
Posted by: Eveleigh | February 03, 2009 at 10:34
We need to protect whistleblowers and may need to strengthen the Law to achieve this.
Is it not time to go down the American route and privatise a large part of the Prison service. Most especially if we are going to get tough on crime we will need extra places to be built. Private industry is always more efficient than the public sector, by privatising parts of the prison service, we will send two important messages. 1. we continue to support private business and
2. We will imprison those who's anti-social behaviour is a blight on our society.
There is no reason that the private sector could not take over the running of all of our low-medium security prisons, in our first parliament after reelection. Without a doubt the private sector would reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer of locking up our criminals.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 03, 2009 at 11:51
This is a draft document and therefore deniable as a statement of intent. Useful intelligence but I suspect that it has been exposed prematurely.
Posted by: Sandy Lovatt | February 03, 2009 at 12:15
I can tell you that the same thing is happening in the Probation Service. The Government has ceased to increase funding annually, thus Probation Services have to make savings and as most of the budget is on personnel, the number must be reduced!
Posted by: Ian Ward | February 03, 2009 at 14:13
The people who are to lose their jobs probably aren't the target audience for votes.
I'm not sure with what brown is doing that he intends to have any more elections.
Get the bugger sectioned and get the country sorted.
Posted by: chris southern | February 03, 2009 at 16:26
The Bishop's wine may have gone to his head when it comes to his advocacy of privatisation of prisons.
Convicted prisoners have been deprived of their liberty, as have such other groups as mental people who have been sectioned, and those on remand. I am as greatly in favour of privatisation as anyone, but that cannot extend to people such as police, probation officers, prison officers, judges and any others who deprive citizens of their liberty. The state owes a responsibility to such citizens and must accept that responsibility by directly employing those who look after them.
Posted by: clive elliot | February 03, 2009 at 18:02
I don't agree Clive, its a simple matter of efficiency. How much does it cost to keep a prisoner in the UK? A fortune! The private sector could certainly do it for less. I would not expect us to start with the high security prisons but the open prison's are excatly the right place to try it and see if it works. The state owes the tax payer the best value for money as possible. You know the principle is right, lets have the courage of our convictions.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 03, 2009 at 20:08
Bishop's wine Oh very drole, its WIN that is the important hidden message in my name.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 03, 2009 at 20:10
I don't agree Clive, its a simple matter of efficiency. How much does it cost to keep a prisoner in the UK? A fortune! The private sector could certainly do it for less. I would not expect us to start with the high security prisons but the open prisons are excatly the right place to try it and see if it works. The state owes the tax payer the best value for money possible. You know the principle is right, lets have the courage of our convictions.
Posted by: The Bishop corrected | February 03, 2009 at 20:18
No typing errors on this thread yet, confusing Mr. Davies with Mr. Davis?
Posted by: Super Blue | February 05, 2009 at 10:10
"No typing errors on this thread yet, confusing Mr. Davies with Mr. Davis?"
Now you are getting annoying super blue, who is confusing Davies with Davis, is it that important ? I would have th1ough you would have been the type to support by plans to privatise the prison service. Instead you are obsessing about typing errors and commonly made mistakes by contributors.
Whilst we are obsessing are you an "is" patriot or an "iz" mid-atlantic type. As in privatize or privatise? In either case isn't the meaning the same and crystal clear?
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 05, 2009 at 11:21
Bishop,
I was pointing out that NOBODY has on this this thread - although plenty have on others. You won't need three guesses for the first one, an individual whose spelling and grammar are always faulty.
Posted by: Super Blue | February 05, 2009 at 16:16
The is no reasoning with your type super blue. Every forum gets one from time to time.
All I can offer is that you don't help your own case, by writing incomprehensible sentences.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 05, 2009 at 18:13
Have some people had their sense of humour surgically removed?
Surely, anyone else on here will know who I meant.
Posted by: Super Blue | February 05, 2009 at 22:25