Fire Alert

 

Surprising perhaps given the pressure on prisons that today’s alert to the Lord Chancellor about the appalling outcomes at HMP Swaleside is only the second such urgent notification (UN) about an adult prison this year. But it’s another shocking report none the less.

The Chief Inspector has found dangerously unsafe conditions for prisoners and staff at the Kent prison with very high levels of violence affecting every aspect of life there. Three-quarters of prisoners reported having felt unsafe with a third saying they’d been physically assaulted. No wonder Charlie Taylor identified a pervasive sense of despair among prisoners “many of whom felt hopeless, helpless and afraid”.

One particularly concerning finding is the “exceptionally high” number of cell fires with inspectors witnessing fire damage alongside more familiar graffiti, broken furniture, and mouldy showers.

Earlier this year, Ministers revealed that in 2024 Swaleside had 116 fires, second only to HMP Forest Bank. The UN reads as if the number might have increased this year.

This would be a major surprise as the prison has been trialling a safer vape pen since April at least. According to the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate, (CPFSI), 95% of prison fires are started deliberately with vapes responsible for causing more than two thirds of them. CPFSI is optimistic that the new safer vape pen will prove a “significant advancement in prison safety” when it’s rolled out. According to their latest annual report the device hasn’t been linked to any fires in the eight prisons where its being trialled- including Swaleside.

So what has been causing the fires there this year?

Charlie Taylor says not enough work has been done to understand the causes of prison fires at Swaleside, but that’s true across the board. While the Urgent Notification suggests many priorities for the jail, preventing fires should be one of them. Six years ago Christian Hinkley  died of smoke inhalation in his cell at Swaleside and before and since then,  the CPFSI has issued a series of enforcement notices on the prison so that it complies with fire safety regulations.

When David Lammy responds to the UN in January, I look forward to seeing what action he’ll take to ensure it does so.    

Courting Trouble

 

The prison population projections out today are produced to aid policy development, capacity planning and resource allocation within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Odd then that they take no account of the Sentencing Bill that will almost certainly become law early next year and start to have a downward impact on prison numbers as soon as it comes into force.

The extent of that impact is uncertain but suspending most short sentences, releasing most prisoners a third of their way into their sentence and limiting periods of recall are bound to have some effect. So the headline estimate that prison numbers will increase to between 98,000 and 103,600 by March 2030, with a central estimate of 100,600 will be way off the mark.

More understandably, the projections don’t take account of government policies in response to the Independent Review into Criminal Courts, announced in outline (but no more) this week. Should they reach the statute book what impact on prison numbers is likely to result from increasing Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers to 18 or even 24 months and the new Judge only Crown court arrangements for those facing jail terms of three years or less if convicted?

On the face of it keeping more cases in the lower reaches of the court system should lead to reductions in the custody rate and in the average length of prison terms. Swifter courts could reduce the time defendants spend on remand too.

But as things stand only just over half of those sentenced in the Crown Court for either way offences go to prison, and the average sentence length is about two years. Maybe the new arrangements will produce a more rather than less punitive approach.

Commentators have suggested that speedier courts could mean an  uptick in perpetrators sentenced under the reforms leaving prisons unable to cope; or that the three year limit may create a perverse incentive for the defence to characterise alleged offences as more serious to get the case before a jury. Greater sentencing powers for magistrates may lead them to impose jail terms just over the 12 month threshold below which they’ll be expected to suspend them.

Presumably when legislation is introduced, an impact assessment will be published based on modelling of various scenarios. It seems surprising that for now all we’ve got to go on is a short statement in parliament, a letter to stakeholders and a press release.

Should the court reforms come into effect, one body that could play a crucial role in determining outcomes is the Sentencing Council who will need to prepare fresh allocation guidelines. As the Lady Chief Justice told MPs last month “if the Gauke reforms and Leveson come in, it is more important now than it has ever been”.

But she thought the Justice Committee should know that the mood in the Sentencing Council is pretty bleak. There is deep uncertainty hanging over its head. Her view is that clauses in the Sentencing Bill designed to increase democratic oversight have the potential significantly to undermine confidence in and the independence of the Council.

This may be just one example of a failure to properly consider the interactions between the reviews of sentencing and of courts.  A comprehensive and properly reasoned response to both – and to Anne Owers review of prison capacity -is surely not too much to ask.

Which Way for Youth Custody?

 

Radical stuff from the Childrens Commissioner in her Longford Lecture this week- urging that Young Offender Institutions are closed now, that children aren’t remanded in custodial settings and that alternatives are developed even for those who commit the most serious offences.

Rachel de Souza is right that her message is politically inconvenient. But is it coherent in terms of policy?

I was surprised to read Rachel dismissing the Secure Schools initiative as a mere “tweak”. Despite current failings at Oasis Restore, replacing YOIs and the Secure Training Centre with more Secure Schools and Secure Childrens Homes has always looked a reasonable if ambitious long-term blueprint, despite its glacial progress so far. But it doesn’t satisfy Rachel’s desire for yet more fundamental change and the need to develop “genuine decent alternatives”.

The government response to the review on girls in custody also out this week illustrates the scale of the challenge of even modest reform to the system for this tiny group. Because as things stand a Secure Childrens Home can’t be required to accept every child referred to it, there’ll always be a need for a backstop form of custody to guarantee a court decision that a child should be detained can be implemented.

An enhanced protocol will see SCH’s working together to ensure more children deemed suitable for a placement can be accommodated in them. It’s a stretch to think that all of those currently held in YOI’s, mostly 16 and 17 years of age could easily be held safely in care-based facilities without significant investment not only in the number of places available but in staff capacity and regime development.

As for developing more wide-ranging alternatives to custody, it’s clear that the care sector is struggling to meet the needs of the children it’s already responsible for.  The  huge rise in the number of children deprived of their liberty by the High Court who can end up for months  in unregulated settings has in part been fuelled, according to the Nuffield Observatory, by the welcome falls in youth custody. Some children get locked up instead via the welfare system. The extent of what used to be called “transinstitutionalisation” needs further investigation.

Legal change and increased funding for open and secure residential care should bring down the numbers deprived of their liberty in this way over time. But the issue makes the case for a more integrated governmental approach to meeting the needs of all children in trouble. For example, by moving responsibility for youth justice to the Education Department. Or by broadening/reinventing the role of the Youth Justice Board. Without this, I can’t see Rachel’s radical vison taking root.

Also needed is proper consideration of the processes by which children end up behind bars. Neither the Gauke Sentencing Review nor Leveson’s Courts review looked at the effectiveness of arrangements for children. The interesting ideas for reforming the youth court in Charlie Taylor’s 2016 Youth Justice Review sit in some long grass somewhere in Whitehall. It’s time for a fresh look at these and other proposals for ensuring that decision-making about children in trouble across the board is appropriate to the task.  This is particularly true in respect of remand decision-making which is so often in Rachel’s memorable phrase “ a production line of pointlessness”

The Children’s Commissioner has opened up an important debate about how far and how fast we can go with youth justice reform. The disgraceful abuse faced by young men at Medomsley Detention Centre highlighted this week shows what can happen when punitive short sharp shock policies take hold in the justice system. Reform UK’s plan for “High Intensity Training Camps “has a worryingly familiar ring.

Labour has the opportunity, and many would say duty to chart an altogether more constructive course for youth justice.

More Questions than Answers on Fire Safety in Prisons

 

Prison fires and subsequent injuries remain of serious concern according to the recently published 2024-25 Annual Report of the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate (CPFSI). It’s a much more timely and useful publication than usual- the 2023-24 Report came out just four months ago- and it’s a troubling one.  

The latest update reveals that the 116 prisons in England saw 534 fire related injuries in the last financial year, 60 fewer than in 2023-4 but still three times more than occurred five years ago. Fire incidents have doubled over the last five years from 1308 to 2932.

The data in the Report, which includes all recorded fires, not only those where the Fire Service attends, shows double the rate of fires in private sector prisons than in public ones.

2,263 fires were recorded in the 101 public sector prisons – an average of 22.4 fires per prison. 669 fires were recorded at the 15 private jails, a rate of 44.6. The sectors are not directly comparable- for one thing there are 11 publicly run Open Prisons accommodating low risk prisoners and none in the private sector. It’s concerning to read that three private prisons accounted for more than 300 fires last year.

95% of prison fires are started deliberately with vapes responsible for causing more than two thirds of them. CPFSI is optimistic that a new Safer Vape Pen will prove a “significant advancement in prison safety” when it’s rolled out shortly. The device hasn’t been linked to any fires in the eight prisons where its being trialled.

But Young Offender Institutions for under 18s have also seen more fires in recent years although vapes aren’t available there. At Werrington and Wetherby misuse of electrical wiring was responsible for causing 97% of fires.

As the Report points out prisoners start fires for numerous reasons: challenging prison regimes, conflicts with other prisoners and staff and to inflict harm. It seems naïve to think new vape pens will eradicate prison fires altogether.  

Chief Inspector Peter Holland accepts that the figures in his Report clearly demonstrate the need for further concerted action to reduce the frequency and impact of fires. He says that 44% of prison cells still do not have suitable in cell fire detection. Presumably this is in line with  the Prison Service estimate of 21,000 cells failing to meet fire safety standards which was recently shared with MPs. The total number of actual cells (singles, doubles, and multi occupied rooms) in the system as a whole is not however clear -to me at any rate. 

I suggested that in their latest inquiry into the Ministry of Justice the Public Accounts Committee investigate the true extent of the fire safety challenge in prisons and the timescale over which HMPPS are looking to fix it.  They didn’t take up the suggestion so perhaps the Justice Committee should do so. It may not seem the highest priority just now, but issues like fire safety never are until they are.

Beyond the Doors ? Whats happening with the Secure School.

 

 

Up to £6 million is needed to fix 184 faulty doors at the Oasis Restore Secure School (ORSS) which closed last month, MPs have been told. Replying to queries from the Justice Committee, new Youth Justice Minister Jake Richards wrote that concerns were first raised about “internal door functionality” in February, when vandalism exposed weaknesses in the locking systems and fabric of some doors. This increased risks to the safety of children and staff at the school in Kent.  

There were ten children at ORSS when the closure was announced, eight children were moved into different establishments whilst two were released having served their sentence or the end of their period on remand. The furthest distance a child moved was more than 200 miles to Parc Young Offender Institution in South Wales.

Responsibility for the fiasco lies with the Ministry of Justice which is accountable for the school’s infrastructure. An Independent Review is looking at the decision-making which led to the inadequate specification for the original doors.

Richards says a proportion of the costs of replacing them will be recovered from a budget surplus arising from the temporary closure of the school- but up to a million pounds a month will be spent to retain staff and essential services there.

It’s not clear when the school will reopen although the MoJ's new Permanent Secretary, Jo Farrar, has now told the Public Accounts Committee she hoped it will be in March next year. Specialist architects have identified the available replacement options for the doors with site visits from suppliers underway to develop detailed specifications. 

Neither is it clear how far problems at Oasis Restore may go beyond building failures.  

According to Richards:

“Caring for children with complex needs in a secure setting is extremely challenging and the secure school model was new and innovative. Whilst it is inevitable that there would be learning to take, the issues experienced with the site in recent months are not an acceptable outcome for children or staff. For these reasons, the Department is working at pace to learn from these issues and rectify them as quickly as possible”.

In the meantime, secure school staff are undertaking training, placements at other sites and other “improvement work” in response to issues raised in recent Ofsted inspection reports.

By coincidence, on Friday the House of Lords is debating the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill which would reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a secure schools funding agreement from seven to two years. Although it’s a Private Members bill, it has government support. Unless things improve at Oasis Restore, the government may need to use its provisions.

Young Adults in Custody- Yet Another Challenge for Prisons

  

Failings in secure institutions for children are all too familiar, but a report out today paints an equally disturbing picture of life in a prison where many of those serving long sentences are transferred when they turn 18.  

Among the findings of the local watchdog during the course of the year to April, HMP Swinfen Hall saw  

·         “no go” areas for staff too scared to challenge young men in their care

·         uncontrolled meal queues leaving some prisoners with insufficient or no food

·         serious assaults in unlocked cells and unsupervised association rooms and

·         PAVA incapacitant spray deployed more than twice a week    

The Independent Monitoring Board describes the Staffordshire jail as fundamentally unsafe with violence becoming more serious during the year with stabbings and assaults via kicks and stamps to the head. A ban on razors has led to an increase in more dangerous weapons being used. It’s shocking but perhaps not surprising that one young man had isolated himself in his cell for more than three years.

The prison receives young adult men from all over the country, most under 21 with complex needs and presenting high risk of harm. It’s a very challenging cohort but it looks like the prison is simply not equipped to cope with them.  There have been some welcome efforts to identify and support neurodiverse individuals, but every aspect of the prison’s overall effectiveness was undermined by the limited regime on offer.

The main reason is that staffing levels are “pared down to the minimum”, day and night, made worse by staff absence and unfilled vacancies. So staff who are there struggle to manage the basics.

A review of a very serious incident revealed that staff involved did not have all the resources needed to prevent injury in the case of a serious in cell fire. Food trolleys were filthy, waste food was left unbagged all around the prison, faulty kitchen equipment remained out of action for months. Staff culture is such that the chance of prisoners getting any positive feedback or thanks is nigh-on impossible.

It's a dismal read, miles from the direction of travel I set out for places like Swinfen Hall 12 years ago in Young Adults in Custody The Way Forward. The report for the Transition to Adulthood alliance recommended that young adult prisons should be remodelled as Secure Colleges with an integrated programme of education and training at their core, a normalised regime and the possibilities of progression to open conditions.

It’s a model which has been successful in Germany and elsewhere. It requires first and foremost a recognition of the distinctive needs of young adults and a genuine commitment to meet them. I wonder whether there’s the political will for the first let alone the second.  

 

(A bit) More on the Secure School

 

We learned last month that the Oasis Restore Secure School was to close temporarily following a monitoring visit by Ofsted which raised concerns about safety and the quality of the buildings- in particular a large number of broken doors. The report of Ofsted’s visit which took place at the end of July has now been published. Does it tell us more than we already know?

On timing, the report reveals that while new placements were to be halted immediately, the temporary closure would be “in or around September 2025”. So it’s not altogether clear whether there are still children there. The period of closure is to allow for the environment to be fully assessed, for new security doors to be delivered and installed, and for other essential works to take place. There’s no indication of how long this might take.

On the problems themselves, the report confirms that several “security doors” were badly damaged, compromising the safety of children and staff. Other aspects of the safety and security of the School were also compromised “due to the installation of items that do not have the required resilience for a secure environment”.  The items are not specified. The report mentions other weaknesses- very high temperatures in the education block and poorly maintained outside spaces.

The report’s focus on infrastructure failings makes it hard to assess whether there’s more to this story than badly designed doors and how well Oasis have been managing the School.  Ofsted report an increased use of single separation, when a child is locked up alone in their room. It’s a measure which has a negative impact on children and should only be used when necessaryto prevent injury or serious damage to property.

There is also a reference in the report to “serious safety and security issues” in two areas of the School which managers undertook to remedy urgently - but no detail is provided.

On the whole, the report is more critical of the Ministry of Justice than of Oasis, making it clear that the MoJ is responsible for the building, “including expediting repairs and ordering necessary items, but it has failed to ensure that the replacement items needed are available and installed within a reasonable time frame”.  The more fundamental question is why such repairs are needed so soon after £40 million was spent getting the place ready.

Although the Public Accounts Committee might take this up in their current inquiry into the MoJ, I’d like to see the Justice Committee hold a one off session with officials and Oasis to get to the bottom of what went wrong.