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.