|
This is our first major inquiry on prisons planning and policies in this Parliament, and it has provided an opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's programme of reforms and efficiency savings across the prison estate. In particular we have examined two measures that have been employed by the Ministry of Justice to reduce the operational costs of the system: benchmarking; and structural reforms replacing inefficient prisons with new prisons and extra house blocks in existing prisons, the "new-for-old" capacity programme.
These policies have been implemented alongside the creation of working prisons and resettlement prisons, designed to improve the effectiveness of the prison estate in increasing employability and reducing re-offending, as well as the tightening of operational policies on earned privileges and temporary release in order to improve their public credibility. They have also come at a time when the total prison population has returned to very high levels. We express concern that that despite the Government's efforts to supply sufficient prison places to meet demand, the proportion of prisons that are overcrowded is growing, and the proportion of prisoners held in crowded conditions remains at almost a quarter, with consequent effects on the ability to maintain constructive regimes. We welcome the reduction which has taken place in the cost of a prison place, although we note that it remains high, and is unlikely to fall significantly while the pressures on estate capacity remain at current levels.
We say that the new-for-old programme is a good one in principle, providing opportunity to improve the physical infrastructure of the estate, remove structural inefficiencies, and employ new technologies. But we point out that the policy of replacing older establishments with newer ones is being implemented in a way which results in the creation of large, multi-purpose prisons, while questions arising from available evidence on the relationship between the size and effectiveness of institutions do not appear to have been addressed by the Government, and we argue that reconfiguration of the estate provides an opportunity to build smaller, more specialised, establishments, for young offenders and female offenders, in line with recommendations we have made in previous reports.
The benchmarking process seeks to ensure that public prisons are run in the most efficient way possible, while maintaining safety, decency, security and order. The rationale of benchmarking as a means of reducing public expenditure was widely supported, and we conclude that it is in principle an effective way of reducing expenditure more rapidly than would be possible through prison-by-prison competition.
Evidence from HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Government's own performance data, Independent Monitoring Boards, and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman all indicate a deterioration in standards of safety and performance across the prison estate over the last two years, with fewer opportunities for prisoners to undertake purposeful work or educational activities. The decrease in safety is particularly troubling, with an increase in assaults and self-inflicted deaths. We considered it improbable that there is no link between estate reconfiguration, benchmarking, and changes in operational policy, including the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, and the shift in safety across the prison estate. In particular, we conclude that the fall in staffing levels stemming from redundancies and increased turnover, which at their most acute have resulted in severely restricted regimes, are bound to have reduced the consistency of relationships between officers and prisoners, and in turn affected safety.
In previous Reports we have commended the Government's creation of a nationwide network of resettlement prisons. It should not, however, confuse the priorities of multiple purpose establishments, and dilute the priority accorded to resettlement needs elsewhere in the estate. Prison industries are becoming more common but it remains the case that most prisons do not have the facilities for workshops on a scale that would enable the majority of prisoners to do work which will equip them for employment on release. If support for offenders in moving from custody into the community is to work to best effect, staffing shortages and clearing the backlog of risk assessments must be resolved urgently. Both issues are likely to hamper considerably the efforts of the new providers of Community Rehabilitation Companies as they seek to implement their through-the-gate services.
Prison governors in public sector prisons and some private sector prisons are no longer responsible for the sum total of everything that happens within their prison walls. There is a risk that the proliferation of partner organisations providing services to prisons could distract prison management teams from their core role. They are also constrained in their operational decisions when decisions are taken from the centre on such matters as the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, the 'lights out' policy and release on temporary licence. This potential effect is all the more important when resources are such that reduced staffing levels are impinging on the safety of prisoners and staff for which Governors have ultimate responsibility. We also note that prisoners themselves have an important role to play in creating effective regimes, including through prison councils.
The success of the Government's policy also depends crucially on the ability of NOMS to predict demand for places with sufficient accuracy, and to provide places accordingly. The aim of the new-for-old programme is for old and inefficient facilities to be closed as modern cheaper establishments open, yet the latest projections indicate that the prison population is predicted to continue to grow. There is a risk that as the building of new prisons inevitably takes place several years in advance of those places becoming available, by the time they are in operation it will not be possible to yield savings from further prison closures as there are insufficient places to meet demand. We conclude that the size of the prison budget, the fact that it completely dominates expenditure on crime, the importance of reducing crime, and other problems identified in this report all indicate that we need to re-evaluate how we use custody and alternatives to custody in a cost-effective way which best promotes the safety of the public and reduces future crime.
|
