It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate on an important and sensitive Constituency issue. I am also delighted at the attendance of the Minister, and look forward to her detailed responses. She is known to be a rising star in the Government and is always willing to listen to a reasoned argument. The debate will not be party political, but I hope it will be constructive and deal with an extremely difficult situation.

In April, Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons published a report on Her Majesty's prison Wellingborough. The report was damning and criticised many areas of the prison, including its cleanliness, governance and resettlement programme. After the publication of the report, whose findings followed an inspection in August 2008, the Ministry of Justice decided to put the prison out to market testing and has opened it up to bids from the public, private and third sectors.

Wellingborough prison had several problem areas, which were highlighted in the report, but I hope to show the significant improvements that the current team has made. I want to make it clear that I am not against the Secretary of State's decision to put the prison out to market testing. He is one of the very best members of the Government, and has kept me personally informed throughout the process. In fact, I received a telephone call at 6.30 one morning; it was the No. 10 Downing street hotline and I was told, "I have Mr. Straw on the line for you." "At that time in the morning?" I thought. "Downing street? Jack Straw?" Had there been a coup overnight? Had he become Prime Minister and was I about to be offered a job? Alas, the telephone call was about HMP Wellingborough.

Having received the report, the Secretary of State had to act; there was no way it could be ignored. He was right to put the prison out to market testing. However, I believe that the prison's current governance system could be the best equipped to improve standards there further. I shall do whatever I can to support the governor and prison officers in putting together the best possible bid. In the end, I want the bid that is best for the taxpayer and the inmates to win the contract to run the prison. I believe that a locally based business plan drawn up by the management and prison officers could be not only the best, but the most radical bid.

HM prison Wellingborough is a medium-sized category C training prison that was opened in the 1960s. Wellingborough has the capacity to hold 646 male inmates in nine residential wings. At the time of the inspection there were 635 inmates and 380 staff. When the prison opened, it was a borstal or young offenders institution, but it has since become a jail for adult male sentenced prisoners who are serving 18 months or longer. Much of Wellingborough's catchment area includes the London courts. At any one time about 40 per cent. of the prison population is from minority ethnic groups. The local Wellingborough population has a minority ethnic group of 11 per cent., but many of the inmates come from south of Wellingborough.

Despite the large amount of land surrounding HMP Wellingborough, the prison has not expanded as it could have to house the growing population. There is a major problem with overcrowding in the prison-a situation that is, of course, common across the country. Yesterday, the prison population was 83,776, which is only 34 lower than the highest head count ever.

The report on Wellingborough by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons listed a number of areas that were poor in performance and needed improving. Several of those weaknesses were causes for real concern. They included failure to provide the basics of training and resettlement of prisoners. The report stated:

"We found 200 prisoners, around 30 per cent. of the population, locked in their cells during the core of the day."

However, I believe that highlighting some things as weaknesses would aggrieve the law-abiding people of our society. The report recommended that all prisoners should be given a shower and a free telephone call on their first night in the prison. Many people will find it hard to believe that a prison is failing because only a percentage of inmates can have a shower on their first night. Many people will also be aggrieved to learn that one way in which the prison was failing was in not providing prisoners with their own kettle. It is important to remember that it is a prison, not a holiday camp.

Of the more serious weaknesses highlighted in the report, drug abuse and the availability of drugs were a concern. There was significant evidence of bullying resulting from drug-related debt. The inspection report stated that

"42 per cent. of prisoners, against a 30 per cent. comparator, thought that it was easy or very easy to get illegal drugs within the establishment."

It went on to say that

"48 per cent. of prisoners compared with 27 per cent. in comparator prisons said that they had felt unsafe in the prison and 33 per cent. compared with the 21 per cent. comparator said they had been threatened or intimidated by another prisoner or group of prisoners."

However, it is important to state that the report's findings were gathered at the beginning of August last year-nearly a year ago. Since then, a huge amount of work by the governor and prison officers has resulted in major improvements.

Another concern from the report was that living conditions on the residential units on A to E wings were unsatisfactory and many areas of the prison were dirty and litter-strewn. There was also a problem with vermin. However, I understand that the cleanliness issues have now been resolved. Wellingborough is a training prison and it should prepare inmates for life outside following their release. The report found that there were

"insufficient activities for the 635 inmates and that these activities had not been planned or directed with a view to improving prisoners' skills and employability."

For a training prison that was a definite concern that needed to be tackled immediately.

I had hoped at this point to be able to give a list of improvements, as provided by either the governor's office at Wellingborough prison, the Ministry of Justice or the Minister's office, but unfortunately, despite several requests, the information has been refused. I received an e-mail from a civil servant that stated:

"Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately I don't think we are in a position to help you. As I am sure you understand, as Civil Servants it would be inappropriate to provide you with material that you would then use to argue against Government policy."

That is clearly absolutely unacceptable. Civil servants are there to provide information on a factual basis, not to provide only information that supports the Government's case. In a democracy it is vital that Opposition parties should be given the fullest possible data so that they can create well argued critiques of Government policy. The e-mail implies that if I had been supporting Government policy those concerned would have been happy to supply the information, but because I might have been arguing against Government policy it was withheld. It was not as if I was asking for national security details.

I am not familiar with the e-mail that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I would be happy to take it away at the end of the debate and make inquiries. As a Minister, I would expect my civil servants to provide factual publicly available information to Members of Parliament who request it.

I am grateful. I did not want to get the civil servant into trouble, but I shall give the e-mail to the Minister. I merely wanted to know what improvements Wellingborough prison had made since the report was compiled. I know that those details are available, but I simply could not get hold of them. The information I am using today was either obtained as a result of research by my staff or provided by the Prison Officers Association.

I seek clarification on the criteria that the Government use to propose prisons for market testing. In a written answer, the Minister stated:

"Public sector prisons were short listed for market test if identified as either poorly performing or high cost. Final selection... was made on the basis of a number of operational criteria and took account of wider evidence, such as HM Inspectorate of Prisons reports."-[Hansard, 16 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 265W.]

HMP Wellingborough is cost-effective. According to the Prison Offices Association, it is the 12th most cost-effective of 37 category C training prisons. In 2007-08, the average cost for a category C training prison was £23,471 per place per year. In the same period, the cost of Wellingborough was £21,311 per place per year. That is a saving of £2,160 per prisoner and 9.2 per cent. less than the national average.

I believe that the current local management team and prison officers at HMP Wellingborough should remain in place after the market testing exercise because of the prison's ability to make significant improvements at a time when funding for prisons is low. On the 2008-09 third-quarter weighted score card, Wellingborough was the fourth most improved state prison in the country. Given the current improvements, if the prison was inspected now it would not be considered for market testing.

In the improvement areas of reducing offending, decency, diversity, equality and security, Wellingborough met half the targets. On organisational effectiveness and maintaining order and control, it achieved 80 per cent. of the targets. Those currently involved in governance at the prison have worked hard to improve standards for the inmates and for the taxpayer. It is clear that this is not a high-cost prison, and given the recent improvements it is not poorly performing.

It is important to consider what effect the proposed private sector takeover has had on the prison staff. The publication of the report and the subsequent decision to put the prison out to market tender has of course had an effect on staff morale. Through my "Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden" campaign, I have met with the prison governor and his officers. The prison officers at Wellingborough do a hard job in difficult circumstances, and it has not been made easier by the overcrowding problem.

I went to listen to the concerns of prison officers over the pay dispute, on the picket line outside Wellingborough prison. I found the officers to be genuine and hard-working, but they loathed being outside the prison rather than inside looking after the inmates. At the time, they had a real grievance. By law, they were not allowed to go on strike and their pay on return was set by an independent tribunal. The Government backtracked on that independent review and did not fully implement it. They were wrong, and I told them so. On 25 March 2008, in a debate in Westminster Hall, I said:

"As there is a prison in my Constituency, the final point that I should make is that when the prison officers went on strike, I went to talk to them on the picket line. They are a terrific bunch of men and women, who dedicate their lives to public service. To be on a picket line was unnatural for them-they did not want to be there. They could not wait to get back to the prison, but they had been driven into a situation in which they felt they had no alternative. The Government were wholly wrong to break an agreement".-[Hansard, 25 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 34WH.]

Recently, I had a meeting with the prison governor to discuss the improvements that have been made at the prison and to listen to his plans to make a bid in the market testing exercise. I also met a local prison officer and a representative from the national union. I note that local prison officers care so much about Wellingborough prison that they offered their assistance, supporting the market testing bid despite the national union's Opposition. The Prison Officers Association fully supports Wellingborough's bid and will assist the governor in that application.

The Prison Officers Association has many concerns about privately run prisons, which it says can be cheaper than state prisons only because they have cheaper staff costs and lower staff levels, leading to a greater number of assaults on staff. I, too, have concerns about privately run prisons. From recently published information, it would seem that private prisons are on average not as well run as those owned by the state. As a Thatcherite Conservative, I believe in the private sector and that in competitive areas private solutions are normally best, but we are talking about a public service for which there is no marketplace and no real competition.

Data recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by More 4 News has shown that private prisons in Britain are performing worse than those run by the state. Four of the 10 private prisons assessed under the prison performance assessment tool scored the second lowest rating of 2, which is classed as requiring development. Those low ratings brought the average performance of private prisons below that of state-run prisons. In the third quarter last year, the average overall score for private prisons was 2.6 out of a rating total of 4. In state-run prisons during the same period, the average was 2.85. Moreover, separate figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that nearly twice as many prisoner complaints are upheld in private prisons than are upheld in state-run institutions.

I pose a number of questions to the Minister; I have given her prior notice of them. First, what criteria were used to determine specifically whether HMP Wellingborough should be market tested? Secondly, if a prison rated poorly performing improves in every area, is it not possible for it to have another inspection before the deadline for bids closes? Thirdly, when does the bid for taking over the contract to run Wellingborough prison close? What is the date?

Fourthly, what information do the private and public sectors have to provide for a bid to be accepted, and is that information the same for both sectors? Fifthly, if the local management team wins the bid, how will it operate? Will it be like a management buy-out? Will the prison be run independently or be reabsorbed into the National Offender Management Service? Sixthly, what criteria will be used in determining what bid should be successful? How much weighting will be given to the cost per prisoner? How much weighting will be given to education and retraining, and how much to security?

Seventhly, who will determine the bid? Will it be an independent body or the Secretary of State? Eighthly, will the bids be published in full, so that taxpayers can see what was on offer? Ninthly, on exactly what date will the bid be awarded? Finally, if two bids are deemed to be roughly equal, will preference be given to the private sector or the public?

I hope I have demonstrated that Wellingborough prison has improved significantly since its inspection last year. I want that improvement to continue, whether it be in the public or the private sector.

I congratulate Mr. Bone on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss not only HMP Wellingborough, but prison competition policy more generally.

The Government have a duty to the public to provide efficient and effective prison services-I do not think that the hon. Gentleman took issue with that-and the system must both punish and reform offenders, while protecting the public. Investing in prison and probation services has been a key priority for the Government: prison places have increased by about 25,000-to 85,000-and spending has risen by a similar proportion, while the probation case load has risen by 52 per cent. and spending by 70 per cent. in real terms. We are the first Government since the second world war to oversee a sustained reduction in crime: crime is down 39 per cent. since 1997, the chances of being a victim are the lowest for a generation and adult reoffending fell by 23 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. Those statistics are in no small part a tribute to the entire criminal justice system and, in particular, to the work done by staff in the prison system. I therefore pay tribute to staff at Wellingborough prison and across the system for the often difficult and sometimes dangerous work that they do. They often deal, on a daily basis, with difficulties that many of us would find difficult to handle on a one-off basis.

Our approach to building on our achievements was outlined in a statement made to the House on 27 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and in the accompanying document. An element of the policy is to increase the use of competition in prisons and probation. We are using competition to challenge existing service providers-in the public and private sectors-to improve performance, to encourage new entrants into the prison and probation markets, if that can increase efficiency and innovation, and to provide better outcomes for communities and the taxpayer.

Initially, we sought to deliver the efficiency improvements through the work force modernisation reform package, which was based on a three-year pay deal for staff in public prisons-it was worth more than 10 per cent. in cash terms over the period-linked to necessary but limited reforms. Despite the fact that initial negotiations appeared successful, the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association turned down that negotiated deal. We made it clear to all the trade unions with which we negotiated that the rejection of work force reform would lead to accelerated market testing, and through that programme, we are now seeking to deliver some of the required efficiencies.

A 2005 Department of Trade and Industry report on market-based approaches found that introducing competition among suppliers can lead to lower costs and better quality services. I am not about to argue that one sector or another, whether the public or private, as in this case, always does better than the other-that would be an ideological approach that I do not take. However, we need continuous improvement. Greater competition in the market for prison services will ensure an impetus to improvement, and we shall select the organisations best able to deliver our services efficiently, whatever sector they are from. That is part of what the competition policy is about.

The hon. Gentleman sought some background on how the decision to market-test at Wellingborough was reached. All public sector prisons were considered on the grounds of performance and cost. A shortlist of candidates was produced containing all prisons either seen as high cost, relative to similar prisons, or where performance was rated at level 2 or lower for two or more consecutive quarters according to our published performance ratings. He made some fair comments about Wellingborough prison's performance difficulties over the past few years and highlighted some findings in the most recently published report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that a level 2 establishment is defined as "requiring development". In general, the National Offender Managements Service views such an establishment as one that is basically stable, secure and providing a limited but decent regime, but that is experiencing significant problems in meeting targets and/or major operational problems. In quarter 4 of 2008-09, there were 18 prisons at level 4, 98 at level 3, 17 at level 2 and none at level 1. In addition, 48 prisons were identified as being relatively high cost, with potential savings of £500,000 or more available over the spending review period. Wellingborough prison was assessed as providing less than that in potential savings.

HMP Wellingborough has, however, been assessed as a level 2 establishment for seven consecutive quarters since quarter 2 of 2007-08-more than 21 months. Further evidence was available that improvements are necessary at Wellingborough. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons. In August 2008, the chief inspector described Wellingborough as one of the weakest prisons recently inspected. The report states that nearly half the prisoners surveyed feel unsafe, owing to the high level of bullying, and that Wellingborough fails to provide the basics of training and resettlement, which should be at the core of its work. The hon. Gentleman very fairly set out some of those conclusions.

The final selection from the shortlist-whether based on high costs relative to similar prisons, poor performance or a combination of the two-was made on the basis of a number of operational criteria. Those included the future direction of our capacity programme, potential market interest in the establishments and the location and condition of the prison. On that basis, Wellingborough and Birmingham prisons were selected as the leading candidates to be market-tested this year. I want to make it clear that we view competition not as a punishment tool, but as a way to encourage improvement. From what the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that the poor inspection report and ongoing low rating have provided a spur to improvement at Wellingborough prison. That is good. The public sector provider could mount a bid. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we encourage and welcome strong public sector bids in these competitions, and I hope that Wellingborough prison can make a bid that offers the greatest value for money. If it does, it will be awarded the contract.

I shall answer some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. I hope that I have already answered his question about what specific criteria were used to determine whether HMP Wellingborough should be market-tested. He also asked whether, if a prison rated as poorly performing improves in every area, it could be inspected again before the competition policy is applied. We have announced a market test at Wellingborough and Birmingham, and to be true to our word, we need to go through with them to show that we are serious about the competition policy, which we are. I am encouraged that, as he said, improvements are being made at Wellingborough and that a great effort is being made. That will improve the public sector provider's chance of winning the competition-if it makes the best bid, it will win the competition.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the bidding process for taking over the contract to run the prison will close. I cannot give him a precise date, but it will be launched later this year, and I expect it to take about eight months to complete the process and announce a winner. He also asked what information the private and public sectors have to provide to have a bid accepted and whether the information is the same for bidders from both sectors. All bidders will be required to submit information on the same areas, and the information requirements will be set out in the information-to-tender document, which will be published after the launch of the competition. It will be clear at that stage precisely what is being asked and what kind of information will be sought. There will be a level playing field in that sense.

The hon. Gentleman asked how, if the local management team wins the bid, it will operate. Will it be run independently or go back to being run as part of NOMS? If a public service provider wins the competition, the ongoing relationship with NOMS and the relevant director of offender management will be managed through a service level agreement, which is very similar to the way in which-

Order. We now move to the next debate.