Not a Great Year for Prison Reform

Prison reformers are nothing if not optimists, but 2021 won’t be remembered as a great year.

Dismal projections in November suggested prison numbers could reach 98,500 over the next four years. The Treasury confirmed funds to continue the biggest prison building programme in more than a century.  G4S will open HMP Five Wells for business in February although plans for two of the further six proposed new establishments, in Lancashire and Buckinghamshire, have aroused local opposition.

With a prison population rate already well in excess of our Western European neighbours (Scotland aside), surely £4 billion should be spent more productively than locking up more people for longer. Prison building seems increasingly justified on grounds of local economic development and even levelling up rather than penal effectiveness or crime reduction.

The new jails are unlikely to replace unsuitable old ones – indeed the Prison Service appear to have signed yet another new lease with the Duchy of Cornwall to keep HMP Dartmoor open 212 years after it was built to house French PoWs.

Conditions in many prisons remain poor or even unsafe. It will take at least seven years to install automatic cell fire detection across the estate.  The pains of imprisonment have been exacerbated of course by the restrictions caused by the pandemic, back in place at years end as they were at its start.  

Youth custody is in a mess following the closure of Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre and serious problems at Oakhill. The Medway Secure School, heralded five years ago as a brave new world is reportedly delayed yet again, possibly not opening until 2023. Efforts to better meet the developing needs of young adults have stalled.

Glimmers of hope may lie in an expanding and newly reunified probation service, notwithstanding Prime Ministerial nonsense about chain gangs. 2021 saw the launch of the first new Probation hostel for, extraordinarily, thirty years – a period which has seen 19 new prisons built.

A new generation of problem-solving courts could divert more people from custody and sensibly implemented new arrangements for Out of Court disposals could reduce prosecutions. These initiatives could help ensure that 23,000 new police do not inexorably bring about 20,000 more prisoners.  

A relatively small part of the projected increase in imprisonment will directly come about via the longer custodial terms for serious offenders contained in the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill which has been wending its way through parliament this year. Their impact could be greater if they have a knock-on effect on the length of terms imposed by courts for less serious crimes.

Stopping that happening will be a job for the Sentencing Council. Promisingly, it has decided to give overdue priority to considering evidence on the effectiveness of sentencing and enhancing ways to raise awareness of the relevant issues.  

Back in 2008, when in Opposition a Conservative Shadow Prisons Minister told MPs “the rise in the number of prisoners from 60,000 to 83,000 should not be a point of pride. It should be a point of shame.” He was right. Going up to almost 100,000 would be even more shameful.

So as we go into 2022, lets hang on to the thought that while a future with more and more prisoners is looking likely, it isn’t inevitable.

 

 

Old, New, Borrowed, Blue

 

As someone said about Russian novels, today’s Prisons Strategy White Paper is something of a loose baggy monster.  It contains the usual mix of broad assertions - “having an effective prison system is central to the Government’s mission to level up the country” and detailed info (594 staff, 154 drugs dogs and over 200 archway and handheld metal detectors are involved in enhanced gate security).

The strategy covers action over the next two years and a longer-term ten-year vision. Despite its range, there are some curious omissions: nothing on youth custody (something of a mess at the moment), and very little on countering violent extremism. Nor is there much I can see on tackling racial disparity. On the plus side, comments are invited by February on a set of questions. The Ministry of Justice seem happier to consult on how people are managed in custody than on how long they should stay there.

Reading through the White Paper provides a fair bit of déjà vu.

There’s yet another outing for prison league tables, proposed back in 2016 “to show which prisons are making real progress in getting offenders off drugs and developing the education and skills they need to get work”. And a further plan to empower governors, more than five years after PM David Cameron vowed to give them “unprecedented operational and financial autonomy” trusting them to get on and run their jail in the way they see fit. Will these old chestnuts come any closer to implementation than last time round? The plans seem a bit more granular than before – (yes, the strategy includes that ghastly term) - but no mention is made of why earlier efforts didn’t get off the ground.

There is something new in terms of ideas (or perhaps just labels) – Resettlement Passports which sensibly collate the documents prisoners need on release; a Prisoner Education Service to try yet again to breathe life into a poorly structured and long under performing part of the system; and an innovation task force to identify and pilot new ways of reducing violence and self-harm. There are promising suggestions of more IT access for prisoners and staff which is way overdue.

By contrast, an ambition of the purported new approach to women’s prisons, should surely not be to introduce “smaller, trauma responsive custodial environments for women on short sentences” but to develop the necessary measures in the community to keep these women out of prison altogether.

It’s encouraging that the strategy borrows from the women’s estate the idea of providing trauma informed training for staff in men’s prisons and a welcome acknowledgement of  the scale of neurodiversity.  It's still jarring to read that "around half the prison population have suffered a traumatic brain injury." 

Borrowing the idea of employment advisers and hubs in prisons could help make a difference to job prospects on release.

It’s less clear whether fast track adjudications – for which the strategy prays in aid the concept of procedural justice- will in fact be perceived as fair by prisoners who find “their case diverted straight to the punishment phase more quickly". It will also be worth watching closely how prisons apply the lessons of lockdown. It may be true that “mass unstructured social time can make some prisoners feel unsafe and can inhibit the ability of staff to manage risks of violence and bullying”. But this shouldn’t mean more time behind the cell door becoming a norm.

What’s blue? Depressing certainly is the £4 billion investment in 20,000 new prison places. Yes, six new prisons will serve to modernise the estate. But there is no mention of "new for old". These are additional to not replacements for a crumbling set of buildings, needed because of a policy choice to lock up more people for longer. 

Back in 2016, Cameron thought “politicians from all sides of the political spectrum are starting to realise the diminishing returns from ever higher levels of incarceration”. On that, sadly, he was wrong. Where he was right was to pose the question: "wouldn’t we be better to focus our scarce resources on preventing crime in the first place and by breaking the cycle of re-offending"? 

That’s not answered here, nor even properly asked.

More On Fire Safety in Prisons

 

The Mid Kent and Medway Coroner has published a troubling inquest report on the 2019 death of Christian Hinkley. Christian died by smoke inhalation when a fire developed in his cell at HMP Swaleside. The report has been sent to Prisons Minister Victoria Atkins because the Coroner thinks that “action should be taken to prevent future deaths” and believes the Ministry of Justice has the power to take such action.

The report found the system of smoke and fire detectors outside the cells in Christian’s houseblock is not designed to save life, is not regarded by the prison service as reliable and does not provide an acceptable permanent standard of fire detection.

Worse, the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate (CPFSI) issued a Notice in 2015 advising the prison to take action so that fires were detected sufficiently early. Four years later, in April 2019, a further CPFSI inspection led to another such Notice being issued. The Coroner considers “the only effective way to address this problem is to install in-cell automatic fire detectors”.

The Inquest has clearly identified a systemic problem, aspects of which I highlighted earlier in the year. Since then, the Chief Inspector of Crown Premises Fire Safety has published their latest Annual Report. It raises some pressing questions.

First, the report says that CPFSI agreed with Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in 2015 that an acceptable interim solution to the lack of suitable in cell automatic fire detection would be installing domestic smoke detectors either in the cell or immediately outside and above the cell door. But in the light of the Swaleside inquest this latter option at least may not work well enough. As for in cell detection, the inspector wrote that it has proved to be a major managerial challenge for prison staff to prevent tampering and vandalism to the domestic smoke detectors. What is HMPPS doing to address that problem?

Second, the Coroner wrote that the plan to install in cell automatic fire detection systems in all prisons in England and Wales “is currently in the development stage.”  It may take up to 7 years to complete in 35 prisons across England and Wales -and the Coroner says, “perhaps longer for others.” Is this really a prompt enough response to a system that is inadequate and unsafe and on which the inspector says action is imperative? A prisoner in a cell will die within 8 minutes of ignition of an in-cell fire.

Third, the arrangements (and teeth) for inspection look in need of sharpening up. CPFSI report that in 16 full audits of prisons, two were served with Enforcement Notices, 13 were required to produce an action plan within 28 days and one was found to be satisfactory. Of the 15 prisons which had to respond to formal enforcement action, none received a satisfactory standard by the time of a follow up inspection. Nine had minor deficiencies, five were required to produce an effective action plan and one Enforcement Notice remained in force. Do prisons and HMPPS take the inspections seriously enough?

Finally, it seems poor that the CPFSI should only produce their annual report for 2019-20 in October 2021- 18 months after the end of the reporting year. As far as I know, the report receives no scrutiny from members of Parliament, and receives no response from Government.  

The Chief Inspector’s role on behalf of the Government is to ensure that people are safe from fire in Crown Premises in England. Since custodial premises are by far the highest risk from fire “given the nature of the institutions and their occupants”, I’d like to see the Home Affairs Select Committee  (who are responsible for the Inspectorate) and the Justice Committee hold a short inquiry into fire safety in prisons and other places of detention.  

In the meantime, Ms Atkins has until the end of the year to respond to the Coroner and in particular his idea that, pending the long-term work to improve fire detection, detectors could be installed as a priority in a small number of “fire safer cells” on each wing of each prison so that prisoners at high risk of setting fires can be placed in them. Ms Atkins will have to say whether using such cells is practicable given overcrowding pressures and if equipping them in this way is cost effective. 

While these may seem technical questions, they deserve much more attention than they have hitherto received.

 

Ten Things We Learned about Youth Custody

 

New Prison Minister Victoria Atkins gave evidence to the Justice Committee about the two privately run Secure Training Centres (STCs), Rainsbrook and Oakhill, both of which have been subject to Urgent Notifications by Inspectors to the Justice Secretary in recent months. Ofsted and the Prisons Inspectorate have had significant concerns about the treatment and conditions of the children detained there producing reports that were in the words of Committee Chair Bob Neill “utterly dire.” Ms Atkins was flanked by the Head of the Youth Custody Service (YCS), who oversees the STCs and the Head of the Prison service, who oversees the YCS. So what did we find out?

1 Rainsbrook STC has closed down, but whether temporarily or permanently isn’t clear. Negotiations with the provider MTC are nearing conclusion so we’ll presumably find out soon if it will re-open and if so under whose management.

2. In the meantime 84 staff from MTC have been transferred to help Home Office with immigration contracts working in an unspecified “open service”. This saves the MoJ £200,000 a month from the bill they are paying for an empty facility.

3. Up to 5 girls were moved from Rainsbrook to the Keppel unit at Wetherby Young Offender Institution in the summer. This was hitherto an all-male establishment. Committee member, ex Prisons Minister Maria Eagle was particularly concerned about a fundamental policy shift but was told it’s a temporary measure. Longer term plans will be set out in a YCS strategy on girls next year.

4. As for Oakhill, there are 32 boys there and they are still taking admissions. The operational capacity has been reduced from 80 to 40 and will remain until a follow up Ofsted inspection takes place.

5. The MoJ have issued 4 “rectification notices” since March and have been concerned about problems at Oakhill since January. The MoJ asked Ofsted to visit in September. Ms Atkins hauled in the MD of G4S within two days of taking up her post and visited Oakhill last week.

6. The pledge in the Action Plan that “a full refurbishment plan for Oakhill STC will be developed by the end of December 2021 and work will commence thereafter” appears exaggerated. “Sprucing up” was the term used by Committee member Rob Butler.

7. It’s not clear who is paying for these refurbishment works. The PFI/ SPV (Private Finance Initiative Special Purpose Vehicle) pays for it said the Head of YCS. So no extra money from the MoJ said Mr Butler. I can’t remember what those initials stand for said the Minister, referring to the SPV. “Goodness knows what it does frankly”. She is not a fan of the contracts for either of the STCs.

8. Ms Atkins and her boss, who she always referred to as the Deputy Prime Minister, are looking at all aspects of the MoJ’s work including the viability of Secure Training Centres. As part of their review, they are considering "all contractual options" which seems to be code for pulling the plug on a PFI contract with 8 years to run. But do they want a big bill and a falling out with G4S who are due to open a big new prison in February?

9. Enabling work to re-convert the old Medway STC into a suitable building for the new Secure School seems only just to have got underway. Delays are due to Ofsted’s exacting design standards- including that  no stairs are allowed. But no one asked how likely the Medway Secure School is to open next September.

10. Ms Atkins told the MPs that at Oakhill she met four young men facing very long sentences for serious crimes. One asked her “Will you remember us?” She described their crimes as being a tragedy for the victims and their loved ones. But also for the young men faced with spending all their twenties behind bars. The task is to give them hope, she said. Perhaps that should give us some.

Postscript: The Justice Committee has now published a letter from Ms Atkins dated 16 November confirming much of the above. 

 

 

Defund Prisons?

 

With prisons literally falling to pieces, presenting serious risks of fire and struggling to retain staff, it may seem perverse and even dangerous to argue that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) should spend less on them.

And so it might be if funds were being earmarked to replace Victorian relics like Winchester where monitors report control room staff exposed to “unpalatable smells” from corpses of poisoned rats, or Wandsworth, rated unsafe, inhumane and “totally unfit for purpose.”

But the £3.8 billion capital spending announced by the Chancellor last week won’t fund new for old modernisation of a crumbling and unsuitable estate but simply increase its overall capacity by 20,000 places, adding 25% to a prison population whose rate exceeds that in every other western European country.

The Spending Review claims the programme “will support the transition towards a more efficient, safe and environmentally sustainable prison estate” but unless prison numbers undershoot the projection of  98,700 by 2026, there will be no scope for reducing overcrowding across the system as a whole, let alone closing the oldest and most brutalising prisons.

The bigger question of course is whether such an eye watering sum of money could be better used in other ways. Did anyone in the Treasury ask it? Their Green Book says “appraisal of alternative policy options is an inseparable part of detailed policy development and design”. It would not take any official long to find the latest US meta research study confirming that “custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation”.

Such evidence may count for little given the current political capital behind punishment and prison expansion but what’s disappointing is how little debate there’s been about other ways at least some of the prison funds could be used.

Two years ago former Met Chief Ian Blair proposed that the police should recruit half the promised 20,000 extra officers with the remaining resources used more creatively on measures recommended by a Royal Commission or People’s Panels. These might want other kinds of police staff (such as analysts dealing with cybercrime) or, “of even more importance, other services which help prevent crime in the first place”.

Sadly, this Justice Reinvestment approach has not been taken up in respect of policing, but as for prison spending it hasn’t really even been put forward- apart from in the campaign to abandon the  plans to build 500 new prison places for women, which so obviously fly in the face of the government’s own female offender strategy.

The MoJ’s current ideas in large part involve new and expanded Category B and C prisons. Back in 2010, the Coalition agreed to “explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drugs offenders” but went nowhere. Residential rehabilitation has diminished over recent years. Such options are among the community based and institutional measures which should be funded with the Treasury’s billions. Prisons are a dead end- and a costly one.  

Honesty on Prisons

Dominic Raab told his Party Conference this week that the government is investing £4 billion to deliver 18,000 extra prison places. How’s that going?

Whatever one thinks of the policy- not a lot in my case- the programme to deliver it looks to be making some progress. But considerable uncertainties remain, especially in respect of planning permission and budgets for new prisons; and increasing capacity in existing ones. I wouldn’t bet much on all of the additional places being available by 2026.

In May, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) told the Justice Committee the 18,000 place expansion plan for  the prison estate is made up as follows:

6 New Builds	9,800
Estate Expansions	6,400
Rapid Deployment and Temporary Accommodation	1,400
Estate Conversions (re-rolling existing facilities into prisons)	400
Total	18,000

 

The 6 new builds comprise two Category C prisons where construction is underway:  the 1,680 places at HMP Five Wells where prisoners will arrive in February 2022 and a similar number at Glen Parva due to open in Spring 2023 after various delays.

Detailed plans have been submitted for two other prisons; the new 1,440 place Category C Prison at Full Sutton is being considered by East Riding Council. If approved, building will start next year. Harborough District Council in Leicestershire is not expected to decide until next year on the application for a 1,715 place Category B prison next to HMP Gartree.

A number of other options are being explored for the other two proposed new builds. A pre application consultation was held earlier in the year on a new Category C resettlement prison for 1,440 on land adjacent to HMP Grendon and HMP Springhill in Buckinghamshire.  A similar consultation was held over the summer about a new 1,715 capacity Category C prison on land next to HMP Garth and HMP Wymott in Chorley, Lancashire.

Additionally, recent weeks have seen a proposal for two new prisons in Essex. Local residents have until 8 November to comment on ideas for a Category B and Category C prison on RAF land at Wethersfield  each of which would accommodate 1,715 prisoners.  

Wherever the final sites, the MoJ is working hard to reduce building time by using standard designs, encouraging off site construction and creating an alliance of 4 building companies who will work together to plan and set up supply chains.  Each company will be allocated one prison to deliver in due course.

Even so, completing all four by 2026 could prove challenging; contract signing to completion looks likely to take almost three years in the case of Five Wells but nearer four or more for Glen Parva.

That’s why an important part of the programme involves making existing prisons bigger. Capacity is being expanded by 938 at HMPs Guys Marsh, Rye Hill, Stocken and High Down. Other establishments look set to hold more prisoners. A consultation is underway about an additional  247 place house block for men at HMP Gartree. Estate expansion includes the wholly unjustifiable creation of 500 new places in five women’s prisons.

MOJ staff were told this week in an update on the Department’s Outcome Delivery Plan that “there are some elements that aren’t progressing as hoped, for example the houseblock programme” but no details were provided. In coming months and years, monitoring this - and indeed the overall programme will be an important task for MPs on the Justice Committee.

The idea that simply adding more cells without extending a prison’s capacity to provide a decent and rehabilitative regime for their occupants is, in any event deeply flawed. Independent Monitors at Wymott reported today that “the kitchen, built in 1979, continues to struggle to cater for more prisoners than was originally planned.”  

The IMB also reported that one wing has been closed for failing to meet health and safety legislation and that “other wings have been in a dire state for many years”.

The Lancashire Prison seems a microcosm of the existing estate, much of which is not fit for purpose. Rather than build a new prison next door, the Prison Service would do better to bring existing facilities up to scratch and reinstate their new for old policy with the worst prisons closed and if necessary, replaced. That of course would require a stabilisation and ideally sharp reduction in prison numbers. 

Sadly, that’s not something we are likely to see. The Justice Secretary thinks “we need the extra cells to restore some honesty in sentencing.” 

What we really need is honesty on prisons.

Healthy Prisons?

 

What should be done following the horrific report last week about the baby who died at Bronzefield Prison two years ago? There’s a lot to be said for restricting much more tightly, if not banning outright, the use of imprisonment for pregnant women; and for strengthening the criteria which must be met before young adults are remanded to custody – something I argued for in a report for the T2A Alliance earlier this year, but which hasn’t so far led to concrete proposals for change  – in contrast to welcome changes to remand arrangements for children in the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The Action Plan published alongside the PPO report addresses many of the specific failings which led to the tragedy, but there’s a case for a more fundamental look at the adequacy of healthcare provided in prison, for women, men and children.  Sue McAllister’s conclusion that the care offered to the mother of the baby who died was “not equivalent to that she could have expected in the community” seems something of an understatement.

The standard of healthcare varies widely in prisons – the four most recent Independent Monitoring Board Annual Reports  have suggested it’s as good if not better than that provided in the community at HMP Styal, but not at HMP Hull, while medicine management was “totally unacceptable” at Stafford and problematic at Pentonville.

During the pandemic, many prison health care services were reduced to emergency access only and the Prison Inspectorate reported that the physical health of prisoners has deteriorated in lockdown. The House of Commons Justice Committee is currently in the middle of inquiries into mental health in prisons and women in prison, but there’s surely a case for a post pandemic investigation of how the physical health care needs of prisoners are being met and arrangements could be improved.

It’s true that three years ago the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee looked at Prison Health and recommended the Government make a “serious attempt to tackle the unacceptable health inequalities present in the current prison healthcare system.” But progress on its recommendations seems to have been limited.

Very surprisingly, in the light of what happened a year later, the report commended the “provision of counselling and support for women in crisis pregnancy and around the loss of a baby or child” at HMP Bronzefield as a best practice.  While as this shows, things can go wrong quickly and disastrously in prisons, it’s the Committee’s recommendations on monitoring and inspection that are none the less among the most significant.

Prison healthcare in England is jointly inspected by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the independent regulator of health and adult social care. The Health Committee argued that greater prominence should be given to CQC’s judgements in inspection reports which should provide a distinct rating about health outcomes rather than merely contribute to a wider assessment of whether prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity.

They also recommended that CQC should conduct a review of the commissioning of health and social care in a number of prisons and report in 2019; and be given legal powers of entry into prisons. Apparently CQC must notify a prison in advance of any visit which makes something of a mockery of the notion of an unannounced inspection.

I may have missed something, but I’m not sure what if any of these proposals have been taken on board. HMIP and CQC operate to a memorandum of understanding from 2016 and CQC regulate according to a handbook from 2015. HMIP reports don’t yet seem to include a distinct health rating.  The review of commissioning does not seem to have taken place or if it has, it’s not published. It would for example be useful to have an expert view on the model in place at Bronzefield where Sodexo directly employs nurses and healthcare assistants and has a corporate contract to employ GPs from Cimarron UK which describes itself as a locum agency.

If there has been inaction, it may be perfectly well explained by the COVID crisis. But as the pandemic hopefully wanes, there is a case for revisiting the 2018 report. One of its key recommendations was that CQC should assess the range of services provided in prisons, including physical health and the prison environment, against the five criteria they apply in other settings- whether they are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Services for pregnant women should be top of that list but there is much else to be looked into. There is a case for an assessment to be made under the aegis of a Parliamentary Committee or an independent Task Force set up for the purpose.  

First New Probation Hostel for 30 years

 

Eden House, a 26-bed probation hostel for women opened its doors this week in Bristol. So-called “Approved Premises” (AP) or half way houses don’t enjoy universal support from reformers but if properly used they can play an important role in supervising remanded or convicted people outside prison. Good luck to all the staff and residents involved in the project.  

I was astonished to read that Eden House is the first new AP to open for 30 years. It’s hard to believe that no new hostels have been built since the fall of the Soviet Union.

During that period, by my calculation, 19 new prisons have been built, providing well over 18,000 new places. In addition, there’s been enormous expansion of capacity within many existing custodial establishments. Some of the existing 100 hostels may have increased their capacity too but the 2,300 odd beds they provide have been increasingly dwarfed by the burgeoning prison estate.

A long overdue Approved Premise Expansion Programme is aiming to deliver 200 additional places, but with plans for a further 18,000 prison places over the next few years, there’s a case for a much more ambitious increase in half way houses. Prison monitors not infrequently mention paroled prisoners waiting for an AP place to become available and the Probation Inspectorate concluded in 2017 that “were extra beds and hostels provided, those places could easily be filled, and this would also enable some prisoners to be released earlier”.

Twenty years ago, a major review of sentencing recommended a review of the “intermediate estate” for accommodating and managing offenders in the community, with the aim of developing a strategic plan for its future use, staffing, management, and development. The review should embrace all types of accommodation, whether owned by the prison or probation services, or the independent and voluntary sectors, and whether used for prisoners on temporary release; prisoners on conditional release; offenders serving community sentences; or ex-offenders receiving support voluntarily”.

I can’t recall whether such a review was ever done, but it’s time for a thorough independent examination of the adequacy of community-based arrangements in the penal system.

Perhaps it’s something for the new team at the Ministry of Justice to commission.

Fire Risk in Prisons

 

On the face of it, shocking findings on fire safety from the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) at Styal Women’s prison in Cheshire were published this week. In their latest annual report covering the year to the end of April, the IMB reveal “a significant fire risk to prisoners” in 16 of the prison's 17 standalone houses each of which accommodates up to 20 women.

The Board say the fire concerns were identified towards the end of the reporting period.  A “recent survey” classed all 16 buildings as “red fire risk”. These risks include the existence of false ceilings, and ceilings made of lath and plaster, “which would require expensive and specialist repair to be brought within regulations. Fire doors and surrounds, which are not suitable and not fire resistant, are evident in almost 70% of the houses”.

It's possible that the repairs have been undertaken or at least underway. But if not, should 300 women continue to be put at risk in unsafe accommodation?

Back in March, the head of the prison service told MPs that a thousand cells had been taken out of use across the estate because of a fire safety issue. She explained this was:

 “some of our older, originally temporary accommodation that we have been using across the estate. We have had a comprehensive fire safety review across the estate. Following Grenfell tower, we felt that it was absolutely crucial to do this. We have been able to replace those cells by using some of our temporary accommodation and also by maintaining other cells. We have a plan to replace those cells in the longer term, but we wanted to make sure that people were in safe accommodation. We have really stepped up our investigation of fire safety following lessons learnt from Grenfell”.

The Grenfell fire was in 2017 which doesn’t suggest a huge degree of urgency.

I made a Freedom of Information request to see the “comprehensive fire safety review” but was told that there wasn’t one. At least, no overarching Fire Safety Review document existed in the form I’d requested. The Ministry of Justice advised me “on a discretionary basis” that “the safety of our prisoners and staff is paramount” and that since Grenfell “we have undertaken individual building surveys” and that as a result, some buildings have been decommissioned to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff.

From the monthly prison population figures , it doesn’t look like the 16 houses at Styal were among those taken out of use earlier this year. The numbers held at the prison have fluctuated between 360 and 390 since January 2021, with the Operational Capacity constant at 400 - actually a little higher than it was last year, before the fire concerns were raised- if the IMB’s report is accurate.  

Fire is not a theoretical risk in prisons. The Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate said in their annual report for 2018-19 that “prisons and other custodial secure premises are, and continue to be, by far the highest risk from a fire safety perspective. They quoted Home Office statistics showing the highest rates of fire per 1,000 buildings per year were seen in prisons with 5,021 compared to hospitals with 263 and supported/sheltered housing with 158. 9 out of 10 prison fires are thought to be deliberate.

The most recent figures show a welcome fall in fires in prisons- 650 in 2020-21 down from more than a thousand the year before. There were fewer than 500 up until 2012-13, after which the numbers rocketed- as of course did violence and self-harm.

82 “casualties” were recorded in fires last year, although this includes those with injuries requiring hospital attention, those requiring first aid at the scene and those given advice to have precautionary checks (whether they then take that advice or not). Previously, inspectors have found “evidence that the continuing rate of injuries may be due to drug use and perversely the smoking ban which has resulted in prisoners using increasingly innovative methods for ignition sources.”

The Fire Safety Inspectorate consider fire risk in prisons “to some extent inevitable given the nature of the institutions”. Most of the estate was originally built to much lower fire safety standards and before regulations applied to prisons.  HMPPS secured additional funding for 2020/21 to improve fire safety and address the shortfall in automatic fire detection in cells

The inspectors said in their last report they had been working closely with HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to drive down the fire risk “where it is reasonably possible”. HMPPS had taken steps to improve fire safety, but “even more concerted action is necessary”. Full audits in nine prisons found “serious enough deficiencies to require formal action in all but two". A Prohibition Notice was served at one establishment and an Enforcement Notice at another. In the other five serious cases, the respective Governors had to produce 28-day action plans to address the non-compliance with the Fire Safety Order identified by the inspection.

The Inspectorate said in their last annual report that “this area of our work will continue to be a high priority in coming years”. Their 2019-20 report is overdue but should be published in the next few days. 

It may show whether that priority has been shared by the prison service at prisons like Styal. 

Pulling the Chain Gang

 

Boris Johnson can’t see any reason why lawbreakers “shouldn't be out there in one of those fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs visibly paying your debt to society”. If that isn’t a nod to Britain First whose policies include the introduction of chain gangs to provide labour for public works- it’s at least an evidence free appeal to the public’s baser instincts to punish and humiliate people in conflict with the law.

The Prime Minister is probably unaware of Recommendations made by the Council of Europe about prison and probation services, but if he is serious about this chain gang proposal – which I doubt- they provide a number of important grounds for avoiding it. 

The 2010 European Probation Rules, developed by leading international experts and approved by the 47 CoE member states including the UK, make clear that probation agencies must respect the human rights of offenders, with all their interventions having  due regard to their dignity, health, safety, and well-being. Community service, in particular, “shall not be of a stigmatising nature.”    The Commentary to the Rules  say that “uniforms that identify community service workers as offenders at work are unlikely to support reintegration”.

In 2017, the CoE adopted Rules which require community-based sanctions to be implemented in a way that does not aggravate their “afflictive nature”, because to do so would be unjust. Gratuitously punitive measures “can also be expected to create resistance and unwillingness to co-operate in any attempt to secure the individual’s law-abiding adjustment in the community”. 

The 2017 Rules also require adequate safeguards to protect offenders from “insult and improper curiosity or publicity”, because community-based penalties may expose them to the risk of public opprobrium or social stigmatisation. 

In fact, many people doing unpaid work already wear bibs- Jack Straw introduced the idea in 2008 in one of its  many rebrandings as “Community Payback (CP) ”. 

 A 2016  inspection of unpaid work found that “a small number of offenders expressed concern at having to wear the high visibility tabards as they felt it was stigmatizing” . One told inspectors that “some members of the public see the CP vests and look down on you. I bet they think ‘what’s he done’ or ‘is he a sex offender’. I have said good morning to people and been ignored. But others appreciate what we are doing so that’s good.”

While the Beating Crime Plan may amount to less than the sum of its parts, it actually contains one or two good ideas. The best unpaid work is already delivered in consultation with local partners so requiring schemes to support community objectives and meet identified needs should bolster public confidence.  As the CoE say,  “work should have purpose and wherever possible should be of genuine benefit to the community.”

More problematic is the pledge to increase the use of electronic monitoring. Expanding EM has been promised countless times since then Home Secretary David Blunkett launched the pilot “Prisons without Bars" in 2004. Will this finally be the time for satellite technology to take off?  

The Plan claims that the use of EM has increased substantially over the last year but statistics out this week show that although the number of subjects on EM on any given day has risen over the last 12-months, the number of new orders has not, "indicating subjects are being tagged for longer periods." 

Moreover, in their latest assessments of confidence in various government programmes, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) rated the MoJ’s EM project as amber/red. That means it’s in doubt, with major risks in key areas. Urgent action is needed to address problems and/or assess whether resolution is feasible.

The IPA mention specific concerns about delays & the quality of case management being provided by suppliers. Apparently “the Project is working collaboratively with suppliers to identify contingency options”. This does not sound like the strongest basis for the promised expansion.

Late for School?

 

Mixed messages last week about the prospects for the governments flagship Secure Schools initiative. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority reported that the first school  is “on track” to open in December 2022 but the Ministry of Justice Outcome Delivery Plan committed only to a start “by 2023.”  Appearing before the Commons Justice Committee, MoJ minister Alex Chalk gave a somewhat downbeat account of  “of trying to repurpose Medway”, the former secure training centre (STC) which will become the first, and quite possibly only, secure school.

In rather flippant evidence, Chalk told MPs “It is very much more complicated than simply turning the lights on and saying, ‘There you go, it’s a secure school. Off you go.’ There is a huge amount that needs to take place because, as you will appreciate, Ofsted needs to be satisfied that from an architectural point of view it qualifies as a secure children’s home (SCH) , which is materially different from a secure training centre, and there need to be all the paraphernalia of a children’s home—new fire standards and goodness knows what.”

Chalk added that only in September, will there be a final specification “for what it needs to look like, and therefore the final cost. What I can tell you is that the cost is not going down. It is a very expensive undertaking—very, very expensive indeed.”  He complained that “ every time we go round Medway, we find other things that need to be sorted out.”

In terms of further secure schools,  Chalk wondered aloud whether the forthcoming Spending Review would provide the necessary resources. He would not be drawn on whether the currently failing Rainsbrook STC would become the site of the second secure school but thought it likely that the contract for the other remaining STC, Oakhill, would run its course until 2029. That will be  13 years after the Government agreed with Charlie Taylor’s vision that both Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and STCs “should be replaced in the longer term by smaller secure schools situated in the regions that they serve”.

Chalk raised questions about the viability of that vision even in the long term. “We are going to need to ensure for some time yet that there is a blend of provision, so that all types can be accommodated. In the early stages, the people going into the secure school will be those who are most likely to get the most benefit out of the secure school. We have to keep our wits about us a little. We are talking about 550 of the most complex children anywhere in the United Kingdom, and we want to make sure that there is an estate that reflects that complexity”.

In fact his department’s projections – which don’t include children in STCs or SCHs -are for the population of under 18s in YOIs to rise from 400 last year to 700 in 2026. Given spending constraints, it’s hard to see much scope for reduction in reliance on the use of YOIs. Indeed, MPs were told that the MoJ are already considering placing girls under 18 back into them as a result of the Rainsbrook crisis.

Chalk made some Pollyannaish efforts to reassure the Committee that he would like to see “all our establishments move on a path to saying they are, in effect, places that are rehabilitative and secure, which sounds a bit like a secure school, I suppose, with a strong emphasis on the educational aspects, so that the differences between them do not so much fade away into irrelevance but are perhaps not quite as stark as in the past.” I don’t think that’s quite what Charlie Taylor had in mind.

There is an outside chance that a stalling youth justice reform programme in the MoJ could be offset a little if the Education Department start to expand the number of SCH beds. Since 2002, 16 secure children’s homes have closed. At any one time, around 25 children each day are waiting for a secure children’s home place and around 20 are placed by English authorities in Scottish secure units due to the lack of available places.  

Remedying the shortage of SCH places might prove more sensible than pursuing the Secure Schools programme.  And perhaps  more attractive to Chalk and his Department who would not have to pay for it,  up front at any rate. 

Crisis in Youth Custody?

 

The task of finding alternative placements for the 33 children held at the unsafe Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre (STC) looks more challenging given today’s inspection report about the only other STC,  G4S run Oakhill in Milton Keynes.  

The Oakhill  inspection, prompted by two serious, violent incidents in which several staff suffered significant injuries, found that for a short period in the spring  “senior managers were in danger of losing control across the centre”. Inspectors were told that one of the factors leading to the instability was the arrival of a small number of children originally allocated to Rainsbrook after admissions there were halted.

Although by the time of the inspection at the end of last month, children at Oakhill were experiencing a calm, structured daily routine, because “uncertainties remain in the centre’s capacity to achieve a sustainable reduction in violence”, it would seem risky to move more than a very small number of  Rainsbrook residents there now.  Inspectors report that a high number of staff have left, many without notice after completing their induction programme and “a significant number have been dismissed”. The recruitment of new staff has not replenished the shortfall, which has been compounded by high sickness levels.  

There should be some options instead to move the Rainsbrook children to secure childrens homes, by far the best institutions in the closed estate for under 18s. At 31 March 2021, the Ministry of Justice were contracting  107 places in seven homes but only 55 children were placed in them by the Youth Custody Service (YCS). It is puzzling why the use of SCHs has fallen – 80 children were placed in them by the YCS a year earlier. 

The ultimate decision whether to admit a child rests with the SCH provider who must comply with Children Act regulations requiring them to accept only children whose needs they can meet alongside children already placed within the home. A recent study has found that “in practice, they will resist taking too many children with the same needs or risks, including those with sexually harmful behaviour.”  But most of those who have been at Rainsbrook should be moved to an SCH.

 If the YCS cannot reach agreement with secure childrens homes about all of the Rainsbrook children, they may look at transferring them to one of the five Young Offender Institutions, four of which are run by the prison service and one by G4S. Given that  “STCs hold children who are deemed to be too vulnerable to be put into YOIs”, it would be hard to square such moves with “the aim of promoting children’s safety and ensuring decisions are made with children’s best interests as a primary consideration” as placement guidance requires. But at the end of the day, such decisions are made  “against a view of the available accommodation”.  

At least as far as Detention and Training Orders are concerned , placements could conceivably be made not only in STCs, SCH’s and YOIs, but “such other accommodation or descriptions of accommodation as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.  Maybe it is time to explore these.

Ironically, this mess arises in the context of some good news. At the end of April 2021, the number of children under 18 in custody was 493, the lowest since records began. This is a decrease of 23 compared with the previous month and 171 fewer than in April 2020.  Despite this welcome and sustained  fall in numbers - there were nearly 3,000 children locked up 15 years ago- the failure to invest the savings in expanding and developing secure childrens homes together with the glacial progress of the new Secure School has exposed a fundamentally broken system.

Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre: What Next?

 

The Justice Secretary’s decision last week effectively to close Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre marks another low in the recent history of youth custody. Robert Buckland was left with little choice when Ofsted told him that the STC is unsafe for children and staff and had in some respects deteriorated since the end of last year when inspectors condemned a bleak and spartan regime, which despite assurances had not been adequately addressed.

Buckland made clear to the Justice Committee in March that he did not like being played for a fool and this time has taken decisive action. The American company running Rainsbrook  strongly refute Ofsted’s latest findings  and plan to vigorously challenge them but it is not clear how. They might try to seek a second opinion- then provider G4S controversially did this after a critical report in 2015- but it looks too late for that .   

Important questions remain.

First, where will the 33 children currently placed at Rainsbrook be placed?  They have all presumably been deemed too vulnerable to be put into Prison Service Young Offender Institutions . There is only one other STC in operation – Oakhill  run by G4S which at the end of last year was found “to require improvement to be good”.  This year Oakhill has experienced high levels of violence with senior managers "in danger of losing control across the centre". There are not likely to be sufficient places in Secure Children’s Homes to accommodate the children from Rainsbrook.

MPs should ask the Justice Secretary to report on exactly what safe, alternative accommodation has been found for them by the Youth Custody Service (YCS) . The law allows the Secretary of State to designate suitable non secure accommodation in which a Detention and Training Order can be served, and his officials should be advising him to explore this option rather than resort to YOI places.

Second, is Buckland open to giving MTC yet another chance?  He says that negotiations are ongoing on the future of the contract, but it looks like trust has all but broken down. A new MTC managing director - a respected former prison service manager- gave undertakings at the Justice Committee in March but Ofsted’s findings cast serious doubts about their value. Inspectors for example report that the STC director and senior leadership team “are not visible to staff and children, failing to provide them with guidance and reassurance”.  This was one of the main concerns raised earlier in the year which the new management promised to fix.  That they have not done so makes it hard to see how MTC can continue.

Moreover, given the repeated shortcomings over several years, it is still puzzling why the contract with MTC was extended early in 2020 for an extra two years- taking it up to May 2023. The Justice Committee are due an explanation from the MoJ by the end of June for what the MPs consider to be a serious error of judgment. Even if the matter  is overtaken by events, they should pursue it. Not only is there a question about ministers’ involvement in the decision but also about the role of the Head of the YCS, who it turns out used to work for MTC.

Third, what will happen if the contract is terminated?  Buckland says options may include bringing the STC back under public sector control or repurposing the site for alternative use. It has become increasingly clear that the STC model looks broken- two of the four Centres have already closed and the future ostensibly lies in the development of Secure Schools. The first of these – Oasis Restore- is due to open next year on the site at Medway in Kent which housed the first STC. Could Rainsbrook – the second STC- be turned into the second Secure School?

Alternatively, the site may be used as prison accommodation for adult or young adult prisoners. Medway has been used in this way during the pandemic pending its conversion to the Secure School. The government’s plans for 18,000 new prison places includes 400 from “estate conversions” so this cannot be ruled out.

A few years ago while on a visit to North Carolina, I spent an afternoon at the Art Gallery where a neighbouring sculpture park and trail  had been created on the former site of the Polk Youth Prison for juvenile offenders . One of the installations was made from the institution’s bricks. Could that be another option for Rainsbrook ?

 

Time after Time

 

There’s hope among reformers that harrowing BBC drama Time could trigger a much-needed rational debate about Britain’s prisons. If nothing else, a mostly accurate dramatisation of life inside makes the case for larger numbers of better trained prison staff, more humane day to day procedures and a major expansion of mental health care .

There could be a revival of interest in Restorative Justice – discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on 14 June and much more questionably, in rehabilitation programmes which expose young people at risk to the realities of prison and enable them to talk to serving prisoners. In the form of “Scared Straight”, these have proved counterproductive for young people, and the jury is out on the impact on offenders of being trained  to run intervention programmes with young people. (I understand none of these activities currently take place inside prisons in England and Wales) .         

But what about the elephant in the room- the increasing periods of time prisoners serve in prison? Is there any prospect that a debate arising from the series could slow down the seemingly inexorable rise in length of custodial sentences for serious offences and the growing proportion of those sentences which are served behind bars?  The average custodial sentence for all offences has increased by almost 40% in length over the last ten years.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill now in Parliament will give effect to the Conservative manifesto pledge to “introduce tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes”. But the Johnson government had taken steps even before the 2019 election to require the most serious offenders to serve a greater proportion of their sentence in custody in order, as they saw it, both to improve public protection and victims’ confidence in the administration of justice.

What was the evidence on which they based this change in policy? After all, the existing system of release at the halfway point for determinate custodial sentences had been endorsed by a comprehensive review and public consultation in 2010-11, “because it can enable effective resettlement and public protection”.  

Nine years on, a month after taking office Johnson purported to hold another sentencing review. But this time, there was no research and evidence paper, and no meaningful consultation. The MoJ claimed that “given the time constraints it has not been possible to undertake any formal public engagement, but we have conducted telephone interviews with some key stakeholders to give them the opportunity to give their views.” 13 organisations were contacted- neither judges nor the Sentencing Council were among them (and the Prison Inspectorate who were on the list told me they hadn’t in fact taken part). 

Nor was any report of the so-called review published. My efforts to require its publication reached the end of the road this month when a judge ruled that publication would present  a significant risk of undermining the confidential space needed by the MOJ to discuss and formulate policy in this controversial area. The judge took the view that “although it is interesting to know whether the policy adopted by the government is supported by stakeholders consulted, it does not seem to us that there is a great public interest in disclosing the policy document for that reason. It is very likely that in any event the policy formulation process leading to a White Paper and legislation will make it clear the path the government has taken and to which stakeholders it has listened (or not)”.

The judge is half right. It is clear who hasn’t been listened to- organisations which have pointed out that the change could lead to more crowded, violent and unstable prisons, more self -harm and  higher risks of re-offending- impacts the government has itself recognised as  “non-monetised costs”  (after they decided to go ahead anyway) .

But who has been listened to? Presumably, those who favour harsher punishment for its own sake and for its electoral appeal . Justice Minister Alex Chalk told Parliament last month that if people are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, they must "serve a sentence that reflects the indignation, anger and upset that we feel as a society on their behalf".

Contrast this approach with that of 2011, when to increase public confidence, the Government promised “to work with the Sentencing Council and victims’ groups to improve overall understanding of the sentencing framework and the construction of individual sentences”. 

Sadly, very little seems to have been done on that front and we are now faced with a second wave of penal populism. And for prisoners, a great deal more time as a result.

 

Rehabilitative Culture War

 

Last month inspectors reported on a prison where “a variety of well-embedded arrangements aimed at keeping residents and staff safe were in place”. Good news, except perhaps for Prisons Minister Alex Chalk who so dislikes the term “residents” he is seeking to prevent prison staff using it to describe or refer to people in prison.

Chalk has more important things to worry about than opening up an unnecessary front in the culture wars. But he reportedly believes the increasing use of alternative language is sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceives serious criminals. Apparently “we should be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in a cell out of choice”.

While far from being the most important problem in prisons, language can be important. I recall seeing a notice from a Governor a couple of years back reminding staff not to talk about “feeding” at mealtimes or “bending up” when applying restraint. Would Chalk prefer a return to this sort of plain speaking?

There has been an overdue recognition of the importance of treating people in prison with respect and dignity, giving them a voice and showing and encouraging trust. Why? Not least because more positive perceptions of so-called procedural justice by prisoners predict lower levels of misconduct, better emotional well-being and mental health outcomes and lower rates of future reoffending.

Of course, the dreadful conditions and experiences faced by many prisoners can make the term resident look peculiarly ironic and ill fitting. But requiring the application of a generic label of prisoner could allow Mr Chalk and his colleagues to ignore those awful realities, or worse justify them under the dismal doctrine of less eligibility. He would do well to remember that people are sentenced to prison as a punishment, not for a punishment.  

In an important statement launched this week, the United Nations is rightly promoting "a rehabilitative approach to prison management that fosters the willingness and ability of prisoners to lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives upon release, and that is embedded in a decent, safe and healthy prison environment and the positive engagement of officers with prisoners".

As part of such an approach, surely governors and staff should be able to continue to use terminology which communicates most productively with prisoners and their families, something which has been particularly important during the pandemic. If the language contributes towards a more rehabilitative ethos so much the better.  Referring to people in prison as residents won’t solve all of the problems in the system but neither will it do any harm.

The Secure Estate for Children- Dates and Updates.

 

The Government’s response to February’s Justice Committee report on Children and Young People in Custody seems to raise fresh doubts that the first secure school will open in September next year. Before Oasis Charitable Trust can start their  self styled "revolution of love", the site at Medway – formerly a Secure Training Centre (STC) and subsequently used to hold adult prisoners during the height of the pandemic -needs extensive refurbishment to upgrade its facilities to “provide a homely child centred environment that meets children’s home regulations”. Subject to securing necessary approvals, the government intend to commence renovations only at the end of this year.

The MoJ say they “continue to work towards an opening date at the end of 2022 and will keep the Committee updated on progress” but I would not bet against slippage to 2023. That could make it seven years since Charlie Taylor first recommended Secure Schools in his 2016 Youth Justice Review. The government says, “in such a complex regulatory and operating environment, it is important to take the time to get it right”. They are certainly doing that.

As for the long- term ambition to replace all Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and STCs with secure schools, the admission that this “will take some time to be realized” is a serious understatement. There is no guaranteed funding for schools beyond so-called Oasis Restore at Medway. The MoJ “will keep the Committee updated when we are able to say more about the timetable for further steps towards our vision”. MPs won't be holding their breath.

Interestingly, the MoJ say they continue to work closely with the Secure Children Home sector “in anticipation of the next round of commissioning, and we are committed to making the most of our SCH provision”. After years of reductions in the number of SCH beds, could this signal a revival of their role in youth justice?

For the short and medium term, the Government response lists a range of potentially useful initiatives underway to improve the operation of the current estate; by raising the skills of staff, improving mental health provision, reducing use of force and self-harm; and developing better resettlement plans. Pain inducing techniques were supposed to be removed from the syllabus of approved restraint at the end of last year, but this is now planned “by the summer.” As for segregation, a policy framework is due to be published by August with immediate implementation, although data on its use will be published only from the next financial year.  A further update on David Lammy’s recommendations on reducing racial disparity will be published “in due course”.

The response also says that the Youth Custody Service has strengthened its partnership with the NHS to identify the small number of children who present a complex mix of characteristics and “whose needs are more suitably met outside of youth custody.” In truth, this is not a small number, given the limited ability of YOIs and STCs to provide a safe and therapeutic environment.  

In a separate inquiry the Justice Committee last month lambasted the failure by private company MTC to deliver even basic standards of care to vulnerable children at Rainsbrook STC.  It is not entirely reassuring to find out from the Committee that when giving evidence to them,  the Executive Director of the Youth Custody Service (YCS) who is responsible for the secure estate, failed to declare that she used to work for MTC in a senior position.  The Committee were concerned  in their report that early in 2020, the MoJ granted the maximum possible two-year extension to the contract with MTC, taking the end date to May 2023. It is not clear what role the Executive Director of the YCS played in that decision, but it is to be hoped that if necessary, relevant interests were declared.