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.