The disturbance at HM Ford on 1 January 2011

Standard Note: SN/HA/5918 Last updated: 24 March 2011

Author: Gabrielle Garton Grimwood Section Home Affairs Section

Prison Service Orders require that prisoners should be categorised objectively according to the likelihood that they will seek to escape and the risk that they would pose should they do so. The process of categorisation starts from a presumption that a prisoner will probably be suitable for a low (C or D) categorisation unless there is evidence, such as the nature of the offence and/or the length of the sentence, to suggest otherwise.

Updated guidance on recategorising prisoners to category D, suitable for open conditions, was issued in 2009 and emphasises that, in making such decisions, prison governors should bear in mind “the particularly challenging management issues associated with the low physical security and supervision levels of the open estate”. Nonetheless, the Prison Officers’ Association and National Association of Probation Officers have for some time been alleging that prisoners are being inappropriately downgraded to category D, to enable spaces in the category D estate to be filled at a time of population pressures. In 2009, HM Chief Inspector of described the smuggling of alcohol into Ford prison (an in West ) as a “significant problem”.

This note discusses some of the controversy surrounding the recategorisation of prisoners to category D and examines what is known about the disturbance at HM Prison Ford, which is subject to two ongoing investigations.

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.

This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents

1 How is a prisoner’s security categorisation and allocation decided? 3 1.1 What sort of prisoner is placed in category D? 3 1.2 How are prisoners recategorised to Category D? 3 1.3 Are prisoners wrongly being recategorised to category D? 5 1.4 Which prisoners are allocated to open prisons? 7

2 What are the rules about alcohol in prison? 7

3 Ford prison 8 3.1 What does it cost to run Ford prison? 8 3.2 What is the prisoner population at Ford prison? 10

4 The disturbance at Ford prison 13 4.1 What happened? 13 4.2 Why did it happen? 14 4.3 Commentary: the views of the POA and the Prison Reform Trust 14

2 1 How is a prisoner’s security categorisation and allocation decided? The prison to which any prisoner is allocated will depend (amongst other things) on their security categorisation. Ford is an open (category D) prison.

The general position regarding security categorisation is set out in Prison Service Order 0900 Categorisation and Allocation, available from the PSO List on the Prison Service website. This explains how prisoners are initially categorised, using various sources of information.1 Category D prisoners are those who “can be reasonably trusted in open conditions”.

1.1 What sort of prisoner is placed in category D? The PSO sets out what it terms the principles of categorisation. Amongst these is a presumption that a prisoner will probably be suitable for a low (C or D) categorisation unless there is evidence (such as the nature of the offence and/or the length of the sentence) to suggest otherwise. Thus, the categorisation process starts from the lowest security categorisations and works upwards.2

Although the PSO suggests that all prisoners should be regarded as probably suitable for category D, there are some exceptions:

• prisoners sentenced to over 12 months for any offence of violence;

• those convicted of any but the most minor sex offence;

• those with a previous sentence of over 12 months for any violent or sexual offence who did not successfully serve part of that sentence in an open prison;

• those with current or previous convictions for arson or any drugs offence involving importation and dealing; or

• those with a recent history of escape or absconds.3

1.2 How are prisoners recategorised to Category D? Recategorisation ─ that is, changing the prisoner’s security category ─ is discussed in chapter 2 of the PSO, which states that, except for prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months, there should be a regular review of categorisation.4

Recategorisation decisions start from an assessment of the risk to the public and the risk of escape or absconding. The PSO suggests that recategorisation will depend on (amongst other things) a “clear change” in the risks presented:

The aim of recategorisation is to use this information to establish whether there has been any clear change in the risk the prisoner poses. More specifically, staff must answer two important questions: (1), is the prisoner more or less of a risk to the public than when he was first categorised; and (2), is he now more or less likely to escape or abscond.

Control factors must also be taken into account:

1 Prison Service Order 0900 Categorisation and Allocation 24 July 2000: paragraph 1.5.3 2 Ibid: paras 1.2.1. – 1.2.7 3 Ibid: para 1.24 4 Ibid: chapter 2: Key points

3 Where the provisional decision is to retain the current category or to downgrade it the governor must consider whether any control factors point to a different categorisation. For instance there will be some prisoners who, while posing less risk and therefore being eligible for downgrading, may be unsuitable in other ways for transfer to conditions of lesser security.5

Guidance dealing with recategorisation to category D was restated and updated at some length by HM Prison Service in May 2009.6 This Prison Service Instruction stated that decisions on recategorisation should take account of the characteristics of the estate for which the prisoner was being assessed ─ a particularly important consideration when contemplating downgrading to category D and open prison conditions ─ and that prisoners should never be allocated to a prison lower than their own security categorisation.7

The Instruction drew attention to “the particularly challenging management issues associated with the low physical security and supervision levels of the open estate” and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system:

14.3 The risks to be assessed may conflict. Likelihood of abscond and risk of harm to the public and damage to public confidence if an abscond occurs will not necessarily be the same, and long sentence prisoners who statistically present an average or lower likelihood of abscond may represent a disproportionately high risk of harm to the public should they abscond and/or a high risk of damage to public confidence in the Prison Service’s ability to safeguard the public by keeping prisoners in safe custody.

14.4 When assessing long sentence prisoners for open conditions it is vital to balance the risks involved if the prisoner were to abscond against the likely benefits to the prisoner of going to open conditions at this stage. Governors will need to consider whether the prisoner has made sufficient positive and successful efforts to reduce risk levels and that the benefits he or she would gain from allocation to open prison are worthwhile at this particular stage in sentence. Consultation with the Police Intelligence Officer should be an integral part of the assessment of any long-term prisoner.

14.5 Every case must be considered on individual merit but, in general, long sentence prisoners should not be recategorised and allocated to open prison until they have served a sufficient proportion of their sentence in a closed prison to enable them to settle into their sentence and to access any offending behaviour programmes identified as essential to the risk reduction process.

14.6 In addition, prisoners should generally not be allocated to open prison :-

• with more than 2 years to serve before their earliest release date ; and

• in the case of prisoners subject to the release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to whom the new duty to release at the half-way point in section 33(1A) does not apply (i.e. ‘unconverted’ 1991 Act prisoners with a PED), they must also be within 5 years of non-parole date (NPD).

Where prisoners are more than 2 years away from earliest release date they must still have their categorisation reviewed in line with the normal process and consideration given to whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify allocation to open

5 Ibid: paras 2.11-12 6 Prison Service Instruction 03/2009 NSF - recategorisation to cat. D and other matters 25 May 2009, available from the PSI list on HM Prison Service website. 7 Ibid: paras 8.2-3

4 prison at this stage. There is no right to have 2 years in open conditions before possible release.

On the issue of the prisoner’s behaviour, the Instruction suggested that this would be relevant to decisions about recategorisation only to the extent that it might indicate that the prisoner could be a risk to the security of the prison or wellbeing of staff and other prisoners:

Poor institutional behaviour may pose a threat to the security of the prison or to the safety and well being of staff and other prisoners. In such a case the prisoner may need to be re-categorised to a higher security category and reallocated to a more suitable prison. Good, compliant behaviour does not, in itself, indicate that the prisoner poses less risk either of escape or abscond or risk of harm to the public or risk to the good order of the prison and is not sufficient justification to downgrade a prisoner. There must be additional sound evidence that the prisoner’s good behaviour is representative of a change in attitude and an associated reduction in the risks that were evidenced at the last categorisation review.8

1.3 Are prisoners wrongly being recategorised to category D? Recategorisation to category D has proved a controversial issue. The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) has been alleging for some time that the recategorisation process is flawed, with unsuitable prisoners being sent to open conditions.

In October 2006, press reports (based on a leaked memo) claimed that the then Home Secretary, John Reid’s plans to move more prisoners into open conditions, to ease overcrowding in the prison estate, had been recognised by officials as increasing the risk of escape and absconding.9 In a statement to the House, John Reid described his plans for “maximum flexibility” to enable transfers to open conditions:

I have, however, accepted the recommendations of the prison authorities in a number of other ways: (…) in providing maximum flexibility within the prison estate to allow transfers to the open estate under severe restrictions in addition to those transferred as a matter of course. That measure was focused on lower-risk offenders serving short sentences for non-sexual or non-violent offences. Prisoners have been transferred only after careful risk assessment.10

David Davis (at that time shadow Home Secretary) questioned what effect this might have on public safety.11 In reply, John Reid argued that those prisoners who went to an open prison under this initiative would represent a lower risk than prisoners who had gone already, as they would be prisoners serving short sentences for non-violent and non-sexual crimes:

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the normal course of events under Governments of all persuasions, sometimes people who had served long sentences would go to an open prison before being released into the community at some stage. Those people would occasionally have committed violent offences, sexual offences or other offences leading to long sentences. That is not the case for those whom I have agreed can be moved for the additional management of the estate.12

8 Ibid: para 13.1 9 Will Woodward “Reid prepares for emergency measures to ease pressure on prisons as only 125 places remain” Guardian 9 October 2006 10 HC Deb 9 October 2006: c33 11 HC Deb 9 October 2006: c36 12 HC Deb 9 October 2006: c43

5 Four years ago, the National Association of Probation Officers and the POA drew attention to what they considered to be the inappropriate downgrading of prisoners which (they alleged) was being done to fill spaces in the open prison estate:

Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said his members believed it was being done on instructions from the Home Office to fill spaces in open prisons and ease the pressure on the rest of the prison system.

(...)

The Napo report was supported by the Prison Officers' Association.

Brian Caton, the POA general secretary, said: "Risk assessment is now less rigorous and decisions are being made more on the basis of expediency than public safety.

"Isn't it odd that a few months ago there were 500 spaces in open prisons which we couldn't fill because there weren't appropriate prisoners to put there and now most of those spaces seem to have disappeared?"

Violence and drug use are on the increase in open jails, Mr Caton added.13

At the POA’s annual conference in May 2010, during a debate on protective clothing, Pete McParlin of the NEC described open prisons as “a lottery”.14 The issue of inappropriate recategorisation was raised again in a conference motion tabled by the NEC. Pete McParlin set out the POA NEC’s concerns:

We want to eliminate the anomalies - areas open to interpretation that allow, for example, the PSO to ignore a violent past if the prisoner is serving a short sentence. We need to minimise the need for hurried assessments by pressured, inexperienced staff, measured assessments within reasonable, achievable targets. Because Michael Spurr, I assure you is on record as saying to his governors, get as many people as you can categorised, and get them categorised down through the system to the cat D estate in particular, because it’s not operating at full capacity. But as we know, it’s not operating at its full capacity because, as he says, the prison population has changed.

Some examples but not an exhaustive list of our concerns. Every instance of departure from the prescribed criteria must be justified and documented on security, but they say only rarely on control grounds. Colleagues, under the principles of re-categorisation two questions are asked. More or less a risk of escape / abscond. There surely needs to be a third question asked? More or less of a threat to staff and to control. How do we achieve? You’re mandating us, hopefully, and we’re going out there once again to seek.

(...)

We’ve already had an absolute disaster in Scotland last year, in which a prisoner was inappropriately categorised and allocated and he went out and committed terrible, terrible crimes. (…) We highlight those inappropriate transfers and the consequences throughout the estate, because it’s happening in the Bs as they allocate them, in the Cs.15

13 Ben Fenton “Killers in open prisons to ease overcrowding” Daily Telegraph 1 January 2007 14 POA 71st Annual Conference 11 – 14 May 2010 Verbatim Report: page 30 15 POA 71st Annual Conference 11 – 14 May 2010 Verbatim Report: pages 181-2

6 1.4 Which prisoners are allocated to open prisons? The Secretary of State has wide discretion to determine where prisoners should be held and whether or not they should be transferred to other prisons. Under section 12 of the Prison Act 1952, prisoners “may be lawfully confined in any prison”, and may be transferred to any other prison at the direction of the Secretary of State.

Maria Eagle made a statement on the allocation process for open prisons in December 2009, when she was prisons minister:

There is a well established categorisation and allocation system which aims to ensure that all prisoners are allocated to a prison with a security category consistent with managing their needs in terms of security and control. The categorisation process assesses the risks posed by individual prisoners in terms of: likelihood of escape or abscond; the risk of harm to the public in the event of an escape or abscond and any control issues that impact on the security of the prison and those within it. The risk assessment will take account of issues including: the nature and circumstances of the index offence, any previous convictions, positive and successful efforts to reduce identified risk levels.

Prisoners convicted of pre-meditated murder cannot be held in open prisons on their initial categorisation decision, but may be transferred to open prison conditions at a later stage as part of their sentence progression. Convicted murderers serving life sentences and other indeterminate sentence prisoners will be transferred from closed to open prison conditions only following the decisions of the independent Parole Board. Before making such a decision, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the case meets the criteria set out in the Directions to the Parole Board under section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.16

2 What are the rules about alcohol in prison? The Prison Rules forbid prisoners to have alcohol in prison. Prison Rule 25 states:

25. – Alcohol and tobacco

(1) No prisoner shall be allowed to have any intoxicating liquor.17

The Prison Service’s strategy on reducing the supply and demand for alcohol in prison was laid out in January 2010, in response to a question from Sadiq Khan:

Mr Blunt: Finds of alcohol within prisons are treated as a miscellaneous incident and recorded on the Prison Service Incident Reporting System. These incidents are in a format that cannot readily be interrogated electronically. To provide the information requested would involve the manual inspection of more than 5,507 miscellaneous incident records for the last six months which could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

NOMS has in place a strategy to reduce both the supply and the demand for alcohol with a comprehensive range of security measures and searching techniques to detect items of contraband, including alcohol, and prevent smuggling into establishments. It is a criminal offence to convey alcohol into prison and prisoners caught in possession of alcohol within prison face disciplinary action. Alcohol consumption is a cause of

16 HC Deb 2 December 2009: c800W 17 Prison Rules 1999 SI1999/728 (consolidated as at January 2010)

7 criminality in society and many prisons have programmes in place to assist prisoners to lessen their dependence on alcohol.18

3 Ford prison The most recent inspection of Ford prison was carried out in 2008 and the report published in 2009.19 In the introduction to her report, Dame Anne Owers (at that time, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons) described the prison as “underperforming” and drew attention to a range of deficiencies ─ including the “significant problem” of alcohol being smuggled into the prison ─ which, she argued, required more attention from managers and staff and, in some cases, more investment and support:

Ford is an open prison in Sussex, which now holds around 550 prisoners in ex-naval billets. Previous inspections have referred to the inadequacy of the prison’s physical environment, the poor staff-prisoner relationships, and the inadequate resettlement focus. It is disappointing that none of these concerns had been properly addressed at the time of this follow-up inspection.

The accommodation at Ford will never be ideal, but it can at least be kept clean. This was not always the case, and previous deep-cleaning routines had lapsed. The reception area remained inadequate, with consequences for prisoners arriving and leaving. The prison’s extensive perimeter made night supervision extremely difficult, without additional staffing. This contributed to the smuggling in of alcohol, especially at night, which had become a significant problem and contributed to some prisoners’ feelings of insecurity. Nevertheless, most prisoners reported feeling safe, and both anti-bullying and suicide prevention procedures were good.

Many staff at Ford were caring and committed, but they found their efforts undermined by those who remained negative and obstructive. In general, staff were not sufficiently proactive, and personal officer work was virtually non-existent. This did not help to monitor problems, or support prisoners preparing for release. Managers needed to be much more active in supporting the efforts of good staff and challenging those who were disengaged or negative.

(...)

Some of the areas of continuing weakness identified in this report require an investment of resources or support from outside the prison. However, in most cases, what is needed is better management oversight and drive, and the engagement of all residential staff in the task of preparing prisoners for release. Ford has a great deal of potential, and many good and committed staff. This is not yet being properly harnessed, and as a consequence the prison is underperforming in its key and important resettlement function.

3.1 What does it cost to run Ford prison? Not surprisingly, since the disturbances, many PQs have been asked about the prison. One such question yielded information about direct expenditure on the prison and the cost of prisoner places there:

18 HC Deb 12 January 2011 c359W 19 Ministry of Justice Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Ford 27–29 October 2008 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 2009

8

HMP Ford

£

Direct Cost per place Cost per prisoner establishment expenditure

2008-09 8,705,446 15,629 16,254

2007-08 8,317,316 15,346 17,334

2006-07 7,676,459 14,189 17,988

2005-06 7,615,456 14,077 14,905

2004-05 8,155,014 15,074 15,653

2003-04 7,751,286 14,328 15,276

2002-03 7,235,485 13,457 14,549

2001-02 6,151,773 12,279 14,968

2000-01 5,815,820 11,608 16,114

1999-2000 5,957,172 11,891 16,039

Prisons and probation minister, Crispin Blunt, also gave information on cost per prisoner place when regional and national costs were included in the calculation:

For 2007-08 and 2008-09 an overall cost per place/prisoner which also includes prison related costs met by NOMS at regional and national level has been calculated as follows:

HMP Ford

£

Overall Overall Overall expenditure cost per cost per place prisoner

2008-09 15,554,845 27,926 29,043

2007-08 12,868,853 23,743 26,819

The overall average cost for 2007-08 and 2008-09 comprises the direct establishment expenditure, (as recorded in the HMPS and NOMS Agency annual report and accounts), increased by an apportionment of relevant costs borne centrally and in the regions by HMPS and NOMS. This involves some estimation. The figures do not include the cost of prisoners held in police or court cells under Operation Safeguard,

9 nor expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. Health and Education). Prisoner escort service costs are included.

Care should be taken in making comparisons over years as there may be changes in scope and accounting treatment that affect comparability.

Cost per prison place is expressed in terms of the certified normal accommodation number of places, which in this case gives a lower unit cost than the cost per prisoner.20

Following the £325 million reduction to the Ministry of Justice’s budget announced in May 2010, Ford prison lost over £130,000 from its resources. 21

3.2 What is the prisoner population at Ford prison? In January 2011, Crispin Blunt confirmed that the certified normal accommodation at Ford prison had been increased by 56 places since 2000:

The certified normal accommodation (CNA) at HMP Ford was 501 in December 2000, providing an operational capacity of 501 places. At the end of December 2010, the number of places had increased to a certified normal accommodation (CNA) of 557, providing an operational capacity of 557 places. 22

Other figures provided by the Ministry of Justice in January 2011 confirmed that the prisoner population at Ford had increased by 127 (nearly a third) during the last decade:23

Table A: Prison population in HMP Ford, as on 31 December of each year 2001-08 and 2010 and on 18 December 2009

Number

2001 396 2002 427 2003 488 2004 510 2005 465 2006 395 2007 494 2008 529 2009 524 2010 523 Note: Due to technical problems reported by the MoJ Head of Statistics as announced on 27/09/2009, the publication of Population in custody monthly tables and Wales' was suspended. Publication resumed in April 2010.

Sources: 2001 and 2002 taken from Table 3 of the 'Prison Population Brief England and Wales' published December 2001 and December 2002.

2003 taken from Table A of the 'F1032 End of month prison population tables,

20 HC Deb 18 January 2001 c681-2 21 HC Deb 20 January 2011 c957W 22 HC Deb 18 January 2001 c684 23 HC Deb 24 January 201 1 c42W. Crispin Blunt pointed out that these figures had been drawn from administrative IT systems and so might be subject to errors with data entry and processing.

10 December 2003'.

2004-08 taken from Table 4 of the 'Population in custody monthly tables England and Wales' for December 2004 to 2008.

2009 data taken from NOMS 'Prison Population and Accommodation Briefing' as on 18/12/2009, the closest available date.

2010 is taken from the prison population as published in the 31/12/10 NOMS 'Prison Population and Accommodation Briefing'.

Sadiq Khan, shadow Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 12 January asked questions about the number and previous security categorisation of prisoners at Ford prison at the time of the disturbance. Crispin Blunt was able to provide no detailed information about the previous security categorisation of the prisoners or about how many were serving sentences for violent offences:

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners formerly held in Category A, B or C prisons were held at HM Prison Ford on 31 December 2010.

Mr Blunt: On 31 December 2010 Ford prison held 487 prisoners. All of these prisoners will have been formerly held in one or more of categories A, B or C prisons during their current sentence. To provide details on precise numbers by category would involve the examination of each individual prisoner's file, many of whom are no longer at HMP Ford, and would involve disproportionate cost.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners were being held at HM Prison Ford at the time of the disturbance in December 2010 and January 2011; and how many of these were prisoners with convictions for violent offences.

Mr Blunt: On 31 December 2010 Ford prison held 487 prisoners. To establish whether these prisoners had convictions for violent offences would involve the examination of the files of each individual prisoner, many of whom are no longer at HMP Ford, and would involve disproportionate cost.24

In response to a question from John McDonnell about the sentences being served by prisoners there, Crispin Blunt also provided breakdowns of the prisoner population at Ford prison by length of sentence, specific offence group and by both: 25

Table A: Prison population in HMP Ford, by sentence length, on 31 December 2010

Population

Sentence length of four years or more 222

Indeterminate sentences 67

Notes: 1. The figures exclude those recalled to prison.

24 HC Deb 12 January 2011 c355-6W 25 HC Deb 18 January 2001 c682-3

11 2. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Source: Further breakdown of the prison population as published in the 31 December 2010 NOMS 'Prison Population and Accommodation Briefing'.

Table B: Prison population in HMP Ford, by specific offence group, on 31 December 2010

Population

Drug offences 146

Violence against the person 115

Notes: 1. The figures include recalls and indeterminate sentences.

2. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Source: Further breakdown of the prison population as published in the 31 December 2010 NOMS 'Prison Population and Accommodation Briefing'.

Table C: Prison population in HMP Ford, by sentence length and specific offence group, on 31 December 2010

Sentence Those with length of more than four years two years or more to serve

Drug offences 113 2

Violence against the person 32 0

Notes: 1. The figures include immediate custodial sentenced prisoners and those recalled to prison.

2. We provided sentence length of four years or more in order to be consistent with the content of our publication.

3. Prisoners are not generally allocated to open prisons with more than two years to serve to their expected release date. Both of the drugs cases with more than two years to serve have less than three years to serve.

4. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems

12 which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Source: Further breakdown of the prison population as published in the 31 December 2010 NOMS 'Prison Population and Accommodation Briefing'.

On the same day, Ian Lavery asked how many prisoners in the last year had been allocated to Ford in contravention of its usual selection criteria or without a full risk assessment. Crispin Blunt was adamant that all the proper criteria and procedures were being complied with:

Prisoners are categorised and allocated to open prison (category D) following an established risk assessment process set out in the National Security Framework as amended by Prison Service Instructions 16/2008 and 3/2009, which remain in force. Prisoners may be assessed as suitable for open conditions if they present a low risk of harm to the public, are considered to be trustworthy not to abscond from low security conditions and, for those serving a lengthy prison sentence, in general, within two years of their earliest release date. Prisoners who do not meet these criteria are not moved to open conditions, and those who are later considered to have increased those risks whilst in open conditions would be moved back to closed conditions.

Sending prisons are aware of Ford's acceptance criteria, and so prisoners who do not meet these criteria are not sent there. All prisoners transferred to Ford have been risk assessed as suitable for category D.26

4 The disturbance at Ford prison 4.1 What happened? A disturbance took place at Ford prison on New Year’s Day. As a result of the disturbance, 86 prisoners were transferred to other prisons, either because of suspected possible involvement in the disturbance or because of damage to the accommodation.27

The scope of the consequent police investigation and NOMS inquiry was outlined the following day28 and the Prison Service issued a statement on 3 January.29 The terms of reference for the NOMS inquiry were later reported in more detail in Hansard:

The Commissioning Officer, Michael Spurr (chief executive officer, NOMS) appointed Ian Mulholland, the Investigating Officer, to investigate the events surrounding the disturbance at HMP Ford on 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011: to determine what occurred; to establish the causes and chronology of events; how the incident was managed; and, to identify learning to enable the service to prevent or better manage such incidents at Ford and elsewhere across the estate in future.

He specifically asked the Investigating Officer to consider:

The events that led to the disturbance, what occurred and whether preventative action could have been taken, including:

26 HC Deb 24 January 2011 c432W 27 HC Deb 20 January 2011 c956W 28 Owen Bowcott “Ford jail riot: police and Prison Service to investigate violence” Guardian 2 January 2011 29 Statement on disturbance at HMP Ford - 03 Jan 11

13 Any intelligence or risk assessment made prior to and during the disturbance;

The level of staffing on duty.

The response to and management of the incident itself, including:

The "first at scene", Silver and Gold arrangements;

Deployment of national resources and joint working with the emergency services.

Any underlying issues/factors which may have contributed to the disturbance including any aspects of the general management of the prison which may have had an impact.30

4.2 Why did it happen? It is, of course, too soon to attribute causes and inquiries ─ both the NOMS internal inquiry and the police investigation ─ are still underway. Media reports, however, suggested that the disturbance began after prison staff attempted to breathalyse prisoners suspected of drinking alcohol. The POA also alleged that some of those leading the disturbance had been assessed as unsuitable for open conditions:

Four of the ringleaders had recently failed risk assessments for open conditions, according to the POA.31

Media reports of the disturbance said that, on the night, only two prison officers and four support staff had been on duty.32 In responding to questions from Sadiq Khan, Crispin Blunt confirmed to the House that this had been the planned level of staffing cover overnight, although more staff had been called in once the disturbance started:

For 30 and 31 December 2010 the first figure in each box indicates the total number of officers and senior officers actually on duty. The second figure is the number of Operational Support Grades actually on duty. In all cases the number of staff on duty was the same number as the staff scheduled to be on duty. The figures in all cases are at or above the risk assessed minimum staffing level.

The figures for 1 January are planned staffing levels only. Once the disturbance at Ford took place a number of Ford staff were called in to the prison or arrived voluntarily. These figures are not available at present.33

Date 7.30 am 1 pm to 5 5 pm to 9 pm to 7.30 to 1 pm pm 9 pm am 30 December 2010 20+7 21+7 8+3 2+5 31 December 2010 17+8 24+7 9+2 2+4 1 January 2011 (planned 11+2 13+2 8+2 2+4 staff)

4.3 Commentary: the views of the POA and the Prison Reform Trust Soon after the riot, the POA claimed that further disturbances were inevitable and prison officers would withdraw if they believed their health and safety to be at risk:

30 HC Deb 17 January 2011 c651W 31 Tom Whitehead “Health and safety fears as more prison riots predicted” Telegraph 3 January 2011 32 Ibid 33 HC Deb 12 January 2011 c355-6W

14 Steve Gillan, the general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association, said future uprisings are inevitable during the austerity drive because of staff shortages and misguided attempts to ease overcrowding.

(...)

"If the Government cannot make the prisons safe then we would have no other choice but to withdraw to places of safety."

Mr Gillan said there are around 2,000 assaults on prison officers nationally every year and added: "If our members' health and safety are at risk we will protect them. We will not rule anything out."

The warning raises the prospect of prison officers refusing to patrol and man jails if their safety is at risk. 34

Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust has criticised the POA for predicting further disturbances and argued that the need for open prisons is as great as ever:

Importantly, the inquiry will need to examine the apparent failure of the Prison Service to heed explicit warnings issued by the then chief inspector of prisons. In her report published in 2009, Anne Owers was critical of lack of resources and "inadequate" focus on resettlement and, in particular, warned about the dangers of "large amounts of alcohol" being smuggled in to the prison.

Time and again we see how binge drinking fuels public disorder. According to the Home Office, almost half of violent crime is drink-related. Alcohol use is a key risk factor in predicting violent reoffending on release. Yet, despite high levels of expenditure on drug rehabilitation in custody, little, or nothing, has been done to address alcohol misuse or an addiction to drink. No one has suggested that Ford prison would have been torched had its inmates been sober.

As is often the case with a high-profile event, spurious links are being made and hasty conclusions drawn. At the time of the incident, the Prison Officers Association was sure-footed in its defence of members' safety and interests. Now, less responsibly, it is predicting a spate of prison riots. Parts of the popular press are only too keen to use tragic events at Ford to have another go at Ken Clarke's moderate proposals for sensible justice reform currently out for consultation. Confidence in the open prison estate, a vital element in the rehabilitation of long-term prisoners, is being called into question.35

34 Tom Whitehead “Health and safety fears as more prison riots predicted” Telegraph 3 January 2011 35 Juliet Lyon “Open prisons are not to blame for Ford riot” Guardian 4 January 2011

15