Conclusions and recommendations
An Enduring Crisis in our prisons and the need for leadership
1.We warmly welcome the link the Secretary of State has made between safety and purposeful activity. There must be greater investment in purposeful activity to reduce the estimated £18 billion cost of reoffending and improve safety in prisons. We repeat the call made in our report Prison Population 2022 for a dual focus on safety and rehabilitative activity and we look forward to further announcements from the Secretary of State setting out how he will improve purposeful activity in prisons. (Paragraph 17)
2.We welcome the previous Secretary of State’s commitment to producing a long-term and multi-year plan and recommend that the current Secretary of State honour it. The plan should set out clearly an overarching and integrated strategy to deal with the main challenges facing the prison system. Prisons policy has too long been made on an ad-hoc basis, with new policies announced via press notice and little explanation given as to how they fit into the overall strategic direction of the Prison Service. A clear, evidenced-based strategy is necessary to give governors the stability and confidence to make the changes necessary to improve prisons. This strategy should be produced by 31 March 2020. (Paragraph 30)
3.In relation to the Government’s proposed changes to sentencing, we are concerned that the announcement may over time result in a significantly increased prison population without any guarantees that the necessary infrastructure will be put in place to avoid further overcrowding of prisons. We recommend that the Ministry publishes the results of its sentencing review in full, including its evaluation of the proposed sentencing changes in the Sentencing Bill on the size of the prison population. (Paragraph 32)
4.We welcome the additional and sorely needed investment the Government has announced for the prison system. Given the Governments’ poor track record in delivering promised new prison places, we recommend that the Ministry sets out further details of how and when it intends to use the £2.5 billion that has been committed to build 10,000 additional places and over what time period they will be built. (Paragraph 34)
5.We are particularly concerned by the focus on creating additional places, rather than on replacing dilapidated and decrepit prisons in the current estate. The Ministry estimates it has a current backlog of maintenance work worth £900 million and attention must be given to the rest of the prison estate, which is falling into an ever-worse state of disrepair. We took comfort from the words of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Chief Executive of the HMPPS, who each acknowledged the significant challenge of managing the prison estate. However, we have still not seen the long-term estate strategy we were told was being developed by the Ministry of Justice. We recommend that the Ministry sets out the immediate steps it is taking to manage and reduce the backlog of maintenance and sets out a timetable to achieve this. We renew our call for a long-term estate strategy and request that the Ministry publishes this in response to this report. (Paragraph 35)
6.We welcome much needed additional funding for the Ministry of Justice and in particular for the prison system. We acknowledge that the recent Spending Review was intended to cover only one financial year but believe the condition of the prison system is such that a multi-year funding settlement is urgently required. Prisons should be safe and decent environments that rehabilitate offenders but this not currently the case. We have called for a long-term plan to improve the prison system, but this will work only if it has the funding to underpin the plan. We note the recent schools funding announcement for the three years to 2022–23 and would welcome something similar for prisons. We recommend that the Ministry works with HM Treasury to agree long-term funding plans, to give the Prison Service and prison governors the confidence and stability to drive real change in prisons. (Paragraph 43)
7.The cross-system approach the Government has taken to the criminal justice sector in its recent policy announcements is welcome. However, we would like to see more detail on how the Government will take the same approach in relation to reoffending, as the Secretary of State set out when giving evidence to us. (Paragraph 45)
The role of the governor
8.We support the principle of governor empowerment and it seems sensible and logical that governors should have autonomy to run their prisons as they see best. Any devolution of responsibility to governors must be accompanied by the training and support necessary for governors to succeed in their role. In the three years since the 2016 White Paper and the setting up of the original six reform prisons, the governor empowerment agenda has been implemented on an ad hoc basis, and we are concerned by a lack of clarity as to how the role of the governor has changed as a result. Neither have we seen any evaluation of the impact the changes have had on prison performance. We recommend that the Ministry publishes a full impact evaluation of the changes it has made to governor responsibilities since 2016. (Paragraph 52)
9.Governors will be able to make use of their autonomy and be truly innovative only if they have the necessary funding and the ability to use it how they see fit. We were concerned to hear that governor’s control over their prison’s finances remains limited. We call on the Ministry to set out in response to this report what discretionary funding is available for governors to undertake individual projects in their prisons, as well as what more can be done to give governors the financial independence to drive truly innovative change. (Paragraph 53)
10.We are concerned that the additional responsibilities that governors have received under the empowerment agenda do not match the rhetoric used by the Ministry and that therefore there is a lack of clarity both as to what governors themselves are responsible for, but more generally who is accountable for the performance of individual prisons. We recommend that the Ministry undertake a review of the accountability structures within which governors operate to ensure absolute clarity as to who is responsible for what. (Paragraph 57)
11.Many different organisations work in a prison and we agree with our witnesses that partnership working is an important part of a well performing prison. A whole-prison approach is absolutely vital and it should be for the governor to work with partner organisations to set the vision and strategic direction for their prison. (Paragraph 59)
12.We welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to introducing greater autonomy for governors to undertake minor repairs and we support him in his endeavour of setting up works departments in prisons to do this. We believe this is a sensible initiative that will have a positive impact on the condition of prisons, as well as creating purposeful activity for prisoners, and call for this to be implemented as soon as possible. We recommend that in response to this Report the Ministry sets out more detail about how it will implement this initiative and when it expects to roll it out across the prison estate. (Paragraph 67)
13.We continue to be very concerned about the performance of facilities management contracts. The condition of the prison estate is dire and the current contracts bureaucratic with limited opportunities for governors to exert any influence in individual prisons. We recommend that the Ministry, at the earliest possible opportunity, move away from national contracts for facilities management to much smaller, localised arrangements. The example of the contracts used under the Prison Education Framework may prove useful in this, but the overarching principle must be that governors have more control over the service and can adapt it to meet the needs of their prison. (Paragraph 68)
14.The current system for approving capital expenditure is bureaucratic and we welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to look seriously at this issue. Governors should have more discretion to authorise capital expenditure themselves. We accept the need to approve some major capital work centrally, but call for greater responsibility for governors. We recommend that the Ministry review governor’s responsibilities for approving capital expenditure and consider how further financial authority can be devolved to them. (Paragraph 71)
15.We are concerned by what we have heard about the bureaucracy of procurement in the prison system, particularly the length of time it can take to get equipment into individual prisons. We welcome the Government’s recent announcement of £100 million investment in prison security, but this will only be effective if the equipment it purchases, such as drugs scanners, arrives in prisons in a timely fashion. We call on the Ministry to commission an independent review of procurement processes to ensure that prisons get the equipment they need in a timely fashion. (Paragraph 74)
16.Governors must have the necessary support and training. We welcome the initiatives being undertaken by HMPPS, such as the senior leaders scheme, but agree that there needs to be greater investment in leadership development. The ability of governors to go on short secondments outside the Prison Service to learn about leadership in other organisations is a vital tool and we would like to see this available more widely. The work undertaken on leadership development as part of the 10 prisons project is positive, but we note no evaluation of this aspect of the project has been published. We recommend that the Ministry sets out how it intends to take forward the leadership development work undertaken as part of the 10 prisons project, including how this will be rolled out across the rest of the estate. (Paragraph 78)
17.The role of the governor is ever more complex and is rapidly moving from having a mainly operational focus to requiring a more strategic approach. Governors need access to sufficient support and expertise to enable them to fulfil this role. (Paragraph 79)
18.We believe that prisons require stability to make improvements and this starts with stable leadership. Turnover of governors is too high, and they do not have enough time to embed long-term change before leaving or moving elsewhere within the Prison Service. In order to reduce turnover and stability we recommend HMPPS should work on the principle that where possible governors remain at one prison for at least five years before being moved to other parts of the Service. (Paragraph 83)
19.Both governors and prison officers must have sufficient incentives to stay in the Prison Service and this is an important part of reducing turnover. We recommend that the Ministry and HMPPS review incentive structures to see what more can be done to incentivise individuals to stay in the Service. (Paragraph 85)
20.We welcome the overall increase in the number of prison officers, but are concerned by the high rate of attrition among officers and the effect this has on the experience in the Service. If HMPPS is unable to retain officers in the long term this will reduce the pipeline of talent for future governors. We note the work currently being undertaken by the Ministry but recommend that a formal strategy is required to improve retention of prison officers. (Paragraph 89)
21.We welcome the Ministry’s commitment to improving BAME representation in the Prison Service but, two years on from the Lammy Review, progress has been disappointingly slow. This must continue to be a priority for the Ministry, which has committed to publishing an update on its implementation of the recommendations in the Lammy Review by the end of 2019. We look forward to seeing this and recommend that the Ministry publishes diversity data by grade, as well as a more detailed analysis of the barriers to progression of BAME staff within HMPPS and an evaluation of the changes the Ministry has implemented since the publication of the Lammy Review to remove such barriers. (Paragraph 92)
Commissioning services in prisons
22.It is clear that governors are not in reality “co-commissioners” of healthcare. For governors to play an effective and influential role in the provision of healthcare, they must work effectively in partnership with healthcare colleagues. There is a risk of inconsistency in the quality of provision across the estate, depending on the quality of those partnerships. We recommend that the Ministry work with NHS England to ensure that effective guidance and training is in place to support governors develop high-quality partnerships with healthcare providers and commissioners. (Paragraph 99)
23.In response to this Report, the Ministry and NHS England should set out the steps they are taking to improve information sharing between Prison Service staff, healthcare providers and health commissioners. (Paragraph 100)
24.We agree that governors and prison officers play a vital in facilitating healthcare. We recommend that HMPPS reviews the training available to ensure that prison staff fully understand what their role is in relation to healthcare and how they can support its provision. (Paragraph 101)
25.We are concerned about the impact that missed appointments might be having on prisoner health, but we are unclear of the impact because HMPPS does not publish performance data on missed appointments. This is something that was originally envisaged in the 2016 White Paper and we recommend that such a measure is included in the Prison Performance Tool. It should also set out the steps it is taking to reduce the number of missed appointments. (Paragraph 102)
26.Now that the Spending Review has been announced, the Ministry should set out what funding will be available to the support the drug recovery pilot, as well as the sharing of good practice at other establishments. (Paragraph 104)
27.We are concerned to hear that the Inspectorate is continuing to find prisons without any proper drug strategy, which was a clear commitment in the Ministry’s own overarching strategy. The Ministry should set out the steps it is taking to ensure all prisons have a drugs strategy in place, as well as how it measures the quality and effectiveness of individual strategies. (Paragraph 105)
28.We welcome the Government’s announcement that funding will be available to install x-ray scanners across the prison estate. Given the Secretary of State’s comments that such scanners will be more effective in some parts of the estate than others, we would welcome further information about how many and which types of prisons will have scanners installed in them, as well as when the Ministry expects these to be installed by. (Paragraph 106)
29.We are concerned to hear that the new arrangements for education provision have been launched without clarity about what governors are responsible for, nor clear measures to hold governors and service providers to account. The Ministry should set out the performance measures that will be used to hold service providers and governors to account. We also seek further detail about how prisoner progression is going to be measured. (Paragraph 112)
30.We welcome the changes to education provision and believe they represent an opportunity to deliver positive change to support the rehabilitation of prisoners. However, we are concerned to hear that some governors do not feel they have the skills or support to manage the new education contracts and this represents a real risk to the long-term success of the new arrangements. We recommend that the Ministry urgently review the training and support available to governors and their teams and the extent to which this training has been received. (Paragraph 114)
31.There is clear evidence to suggest that small providers need longer-term contracts to offer them security. The Ministry should review the arrangements for awarding contracts under the DPS to enable contracts of longer than one year to be offered. (Paragraph 116)
32.The DPS was intended by the Ministry to give prisons access to suppliers that are able to meet the bespoke educational needs of their establishment and offers a flexible route to services that add real value. However, we are concerned that the roll-out of the system has had the opposite effect, acting as a disincentive to governors to tender for services and to service providers to apply for them. The Ministry should urgently review how it can make the DPS more accessible and less time consuming for service providers and prison staff. We note that a similar system is being considered for the probation system; the Ministry should ensure it undertakes a full evaluation of the roll out of the DPS before it introduces a similar initiative as part of its probation reforms. (Paragraph 119)
33.Education in prisons is an important part of the regime and the Ministry needs to ensure that it retains a focus on this, and other purposeful activity, as well as safety and decency in prisons. We recommend the Ministry reviews the training available to prison officers and governors to ensure they are best able to support prisoner’s access to education. (Paragraph 122)
The role of HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice
34.Accountability starts at the top of any governance structure and there needs to be absolute clarity as to the respective responsibilities of the Ministry, and by extension the Minister, and HMPPS. The Prison Service needs a period of stability to deal with the many challenges it faces and constantly changing who is responsible for what, with ever more complicated arrangements, is not helpful in this endeavour. We recommend that the Ministry clarifies the split in responsibilities between itself and HMPPS, particularly in relation to functions delivered by policy teams. (Paragraph 132)
35.We welcome the broadly positive results of the 10 prisons project. However, there were many aspects to the project, such as additional investment in leadership. The limited evaluation that was published provided no quantitative or qualitative analysis of the specific initiatives undertaken. The point of the project was to identify what works in terms of improving safety and decency in prisons, but it remains unclear exactly which parts of the project will now be rolled out across the rest of the estate and what funding is available to do this. Now that the results of the 10 prisons project have been published, we recommend that the Ministry publishes further analysis of the relative success of the various initiatives undertaken, as well as providing details as to what is now being rolled out to other prisons in the estate and what funding will be available to do this. (Paragraph 135)
36.It is vital that HMPPS has an oversight structure in place that enables it to identify where problems exist and support governors. We welcome the introduction of the Prison Group Structure. However, any oversight structure must be proportionate and focused on outcomes. We recommend HMPPS commissions a review to look at how its oversight structures can be streamlined to reduce the burden on governors and their teams, for example by condensing the number of requests for assurance. (Paragraph 139)
37.We recognise the need for any performance management framework or data collection to be proportionate, but we remain concerned about the lack of data available beyond prison safety and security. We welcome the Ministry’s commitment to introduce measures for time out of cell and purposeful activity in 2020–21. However, three years on from the White Paper, we call for a wider discussion about how prison performance is monitored and what data is collected. We note that the Chief Executive has started to review what the right performance measures are and how prisons should be held to account. We recommend that this review engages with the widest possible group of stakeholders and considers what technological solutions are available to make data collection as accurate and resource-efficient as possible. (Paragraph 143)
38.HMPPS collects detailed data on safety in prisons and other aspects of prison life. As a result, many of the measures in the Prison Performance Framework are safety related. However, well performing prisons are not just those that are safe, but also offer a decent environment and rehabilitate the prisoners in their care. We welcome the steps being taken to improve data collection on health and education, but HMPPS needs to work with its partners to produce a suite of prison performance measures that cover all parts of the prison regime to give an overview of the performance of individual prisons as a whole. We recommend that HMPPS works with its partners, including NHS England, to produce a performance framework that covers all aspects of prison life, including health and education. This should be reflected in the annual prison performance ratings. (Paragraph 147)
39.We welcome the review of special measures being undertaken by the Ministry. There is little point in identifying prisons as requiring additional support, if the resulting action does not result in improved performance. There must be sufficient resource available to support prisons that are struggling effectively. We recommend that the Ministry publishes the results of the review undertaken by HMPPS and sets out the steps it will take to improve the support available to poorly performing prisons. (Paragraph 151)
40.The sharing of good practice is an important function of any governance structure and we agree with the Secretary of State that this is something that needs to improve. We often hear about some of the great work that goes on in individual prisons and would like to see this captured more effectively by HMPPS, so that it can be shared with the rest of the estate where appropriate. We recommend that HMPPS develops a formal strategy for the sharing of good practice across the Prison Service and provides an update on the steps being taken to facilitate this. (Paragraph 154)
41.It is unacceptable that healthcare in some private prisons is commissioned to a different specification than the rest of the estate and we are concerned that prisoners in some prisons may receive worse standards of healthcare as a result of this situation. It is important that contracts are flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and this issue should have been dealt with long ago. We recommend that the Ministry sets out a timetable for rectifying this problem. It should also provide information about how HMPPS ensures that there is equivalence between the commissioning specifications it uses and those of NHS England. (Paragraph 161)
42.We welcome the work being undertaken by the Ministry to review the contract delivery indicators (CDIs) to be used for future contracts. However, the fact that many of the current contracts use varying and often out of date CDIs, seems to us an oddity that risks creating an unfair playing field where perverse incentives exist. We recommend that the Ministry considers how it can ensure that future contracts have the flexibility to take into account changes in performance measurement standards as appropriate. (Paragraph 165)
43.We remain concerned at the narrow competitive base of the prisons market and the Ministry’s continued reliance on the same organisations, even when there is evidence of poor performance. We are disappointed at the lack of participation of small and medium-sized enterprises and recommend that the Ministry sets out in response to this Report further steps it can take to encourage new entrants to market, for example by encouraging joint ventures. (Paragraph 168)
Oversight of the prison system
44.We agree with the Chief Inspector of Prisons that it is vital that the Inspectorate retains its independence and the ability to set its own standards. However, we remain deeply concerned at the lack of progress in implementing recommendations. It is not acceptable that for three years running less than half of recommendations made by the Inspectorate have been fully achieved. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the Ministry and HMPPS to implement what is being recommended and they need to take ownership of this. We also understand that many governors, already working in challenging environments, may be overawed by the level of change required and we think they require additional support to make changes that get to the heart of what the Inspectorate is recommending. We welcome the introduction of Independent Reviews of Progress and take a close interest in the results of these. We recommend that the Ministry sets out who is accountable for implementing HMIP recommendations, the steps it is taking to drive improvement and additional support it will provide to governors to do this. Urgent action is needed, and we call on the Ministry to make a commitment that at least 50% of all recommendations will have been fully achieved by the end of 2020–21, as assessed by the Inspectorate. (Paragraph 176)
45.The IMBs play a vital role in the oversight of the prison system and we believe they need to be reinvigorated. We echo the National Chair of the IMBs call for a statutory basis for the national governance structure. We recommend that the Ministry consider legislation to underpin the national governance structure and in particular that there should be a formal national IMB Annual Report laid before Parliament each year. It should also ensure the IMBs are able to perform their role effectively, noting the higher level of resourcing in Scotland. (Paragraph 181)
46.We repeat our call that both the Prison and Probation Ombudsman and the National Preventative Mechanism should be put on a proper statutory footing. We recommend that the Ministry update us on what progress has been made in its exploration of legislative options for both organisations. (Paragraph 185)
Published: 31 October 2019