Curley's prisons Freedom of Information request rejected 2

Finance | Vibeka Mair | 11 Aug 2009

NAVCA chief executive Kevin Curley has been told he cannot use the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act to see the copy of the bid by the Serco consortium that won the contract to run two new prisons, or any award letter and document.

The UK government’s National Offender Management Service (NOMS) told Curley: "Although Serco had been announced as the winning bidder we have not reached contract signature which is planned for early next year. In addition the bids would be considered commercial and therefore not disclosed under the FoI Act.

"However there is a press release on Serco’s website."

The press release says Serco will operate the prisons and that these contracts are expected to have a combined value to Serco of around £600m over 26 and a half years.

Serco won the bid jointly with Catch 22 and Turning Point, which will respectively deliver resettlement and drug rehabilitation services within the jails.

Curley launched a Facebook campaign group against charities running prisons, last month. Its 138 members include former Futurebuilders chief executive Richard Gutch and former Charity Commission policy officer, Zoe Willems.

But Curley is now understood to be taking a step back from the issue and leaving the Howard League for Penal Reform to provide leadership on it.

Adebowale: Each member brings something different

Lord Adebowale, chief executive of Turning Point, defended the consortium, saying the combined knowledge would help take positive steps to reduce reoffending.

“Turning Point is in an alliance with Serco and Catch 22 to deliver offender management services that work to prevent reoffending and turn lives around. We have a wealth of experience in providing mental health, substance misuse and learning disability services which meet individual needs and we believe our work with offenders should not stop outside of prisons.

"Turning Point is looking to provide resettlement services in the areas outlined above, in which we have expertise. Serco will be responsible for the security and management of the prison. Each member of the alliance brings something different to the table and by combining our knowledge and experience, we plan to support well-run prisons which take positive steps towards reducing reoffending.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson added: “We want the best provider to run our prisons, and we welcome the third sector's involvement in the punishment and reform of offenders.”

Who's Who: Vibeka Mair | Kevin Curley

Place a comment

Jay Kennedy
Policy Officer
Directory of Social Change
12 Aug 2009

The assertion that these contracts cannot be disclosed due to commercial confidentiality may be legally correct (although I wonder) but that's missing the point.

There is a massive public interest in putting the details of such contractual relationships in the public domain as a matter of course. In my view this supercedes any claims about commercial confidentiality or competitive advantage.

Our political leaders need to be up front with the electorate about their plans to outsource state services to the private and voluntary sectors.

This is only going to become a bigger and bigger issue in future years. A future where public services are delivered on behalf of government but where the government's contractual relationships with external providers are hidden from view is simply not acceptable.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
12 Aug 2009

Commercial confidentiality and FOI restrictions do not cover the basic question of "Who has legal liability for what in the Alliance".

Perhaps NOMS might not have been asked the direct and unavoidable question.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.