Will Market Harborough become the UK's Prison Capital?

 

The policy of creating 20,000 new prison places has been subject to precious little public debate at national level, with seemingly broad political agreement that they're necessary. There’s more scrutiny at local level thanks to the need to obtain planning permission for any new or expanded prison establishments

Last week the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)  published a revised prospectus about their proposed 1715 place  Category B prison next to HMP Gartree in Leicestershire.  It aims to address concerns raised in the 350 comments received by Harborough District Council following the MoJ’s application for outline planning permission. Of these 346 objected to the plans, three were neutral and only one supportive.

For many, “the fundamental problem is that the proposed development would be absurdly out of scale with the small rural communities surrounding the site” with increased pressure on country roads, more noise, light and air pollution, and a negative impact on wildlife.  One argued that “the term "nimby" does not apply here - we ALREADY have a prison in our back yard!” but concerns about the impact on house prices, the reputation of the area as the prison capital of the UK and an increased demand on local services- particularly the NHS and the sewerage system seem widespread.  

One or two are worried about security - “the risks of riots and escapes inevitably increases the larger and more impersonal the establishments”; about visitors hanging around the town centre and even relatives of inmates moving into the area to be close by “which has led to increases in local crime placing an even greater burden on an already stretched police force”. Homelessness among released prisoners was also raised.

There are some more principled objections. One argues that prisons are a human right violation, a disgusting stain on our 'civilised' society and that we need abolition. Another that in order to address crime “there needs to be a massive re-distribution of wealth and resources, as poverty is a massive driver of "crime" under capitalism.

More practically, several residents questioned how 737 new staff will be found for the new prison. Gartree’s existing 700 place prison struggles to recruit and retain people to work there.  One said the plan “does not do anything for the government’s policy of levelling up as it brings more jobs to an area of already high employment as opposed to giving the opportunity to put those jobs where they are actually needed.”

Another resident pointed out that “those who support the current prison in the town, Chaplains and volunteers are in extremely short supply. People from the churches in town who support the prisoners by buying Christmas presents for their children, could in no way help another very large group of prisoners”. 

Several felt the government should be working much harder to reduce prison populations, and that money would be better spent on the more effective rehabilitation of offenders and not just locking more prisoners up; that “this is an outrageous use of funds which need to be invested in public health”; and that "further investment in meaningful jobs, social housing, education provision for adults and children, child care support, local libraries, transport infrastructure, improved community treatment and voluntary rehabilitation services would all serve the community much better than a prison".

The government’s new prospectus makes much of the social value and community benefits that will accrue from the prison and contains commitments to some small scale neighbourhood improvements – a new play space for Gartree Village on MoJ owned land and better broadband among them.

It understandably steers clear of the bigger policy questions on imprisonment, saying only that “Protecting the community and getting criminals off the streets whilst delivering real rehabilitation opportunities and reducing reoffending is at the core of the Government’s prison building programme”. 

Whether its mitigations on environmental impacts, measures to manage pressures on local services and promises to improve communication with local residents persuade the council to allow the development remains to be seen.

Concerning Recommendations

 

In a puzzling move, the Prison watchdog plans to stop making recommendations about what needs to be done to improve the treatment and conditions of detainees.  The inspectorate (HMIP) is consulting about it can best fulfil its twin functions of drawing public attention to problems in custody and supporting efforts to fix them.  Chief Inspector Charlie Taylor explained in a blog that responding to recommendations creates “a blizzard of paperwork for both the prison and the prison service and can distract governors from getting on with the actual job”. Instead, after a visit he wants to highlight concerns but leave it to  governors and their teams to use their knowledge and expertise to find the solutions.

Making recommendations is a core activity for oversight bodies. Globally, The Nelson Mandela Rules say prison inspectors shall have the authority “to make recommendations to the prison administration and other competent authorities” and that the prison administration shall indicate, within a reasonable time, whether they will implement the recommendations. International law says a so-called National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) should have the power “to make recommendations to the relevant authorities with the aim of improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty. HMIP coordinates the UK’s 21 NPM members.

As recently as 2016, government plans envisaged that “HMIP should play a stronger role in holding prisons to account, so that the recommendations it makes have a real impact on improving the system, while retaining its independence”. Strengthening the scrutiny that prisons receive was intended to play a key role in making prisons safer and more effective at reforming offenders.

In 2019, the House of Commons Justice Committee report on Prison Governance found it unacceptable that for three years running less than half of recommendations made by the Inspectorate had been fully achieved. The MPs prescription was not for HMIP to stop making recommendations but for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Prison Service to take responsibility for implementing them and provide additional support to governors to make changes that get to the heart of what the Inspectorate is recommending.

In their response to the Committee’s report , the MoJ promised to provide more support to prisons and to make progress against HMIP recommendations a formal performance measure that governors are held to account on. As prisons emerge from the pandemic, the MoJ should be encouraged to make good on that promise.  Taylor’s plan threatens to let them off the hook.

While Taylor may be right that prisons can suffer from what used to be called “initiative overload”, specifying a small number of recommendations as high priority is the way to ensure the most important changes are given the attention they need.  Making no recommendations throws the baby out with the bathwater.

There are plenty of other improvements to its methodology that HMIP could make.

For one thing, its reports should include much more comprehensive and systematic data about outcomes across its four healthy prison domains. Last week’s report on Swaleside recommended the recruitment of sufficient operational and specialist staff to reinstate purposeful activity and support prisoners’ progression. Why not say how many there are and how many are needed? The Probation Inspectorate has found that when practitioners hold a caseload of fifty or more, they are less likely to deliver high-quality work meeting the aims of rehabilitation and public protection. Shouldn’t prison inspectors say something similar?

Second, as the Commons Health and Social Care Committee recommended in 2018, greater prominence should be given to Care Quality Commission  judgements in HMIP reports with a clear rating about the extent to which prisons enable prisoners to live healthy lives.   

Finally, the inspectorate could be bolder. This week Scotland’s Chief Inspector of Prisons proposed that no child under 18 should be held in prison.  Submitting proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation is one of the minimum powers which a NPM should have. Using its evidence to press for change in law and policy is something HMIP should do more of, alongside making recommendations for changes in practice.