Response to the Public Accounts Committee on ‘Prison Estate Capacity’ From His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons

• We welcome the opportunity to submit a response to the Public Accounts Committee about Prison Estate Capacity.
• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) is an independent inspectorate whose duties are primarily set out in section 5A of the Prison Act 1952. We provide independent scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees and report on our findings.
• This response provides a brief overview of some of the areas impacted by ongoing issues with prison estate capacity. Until such pressures are meaningfully and sustainably addressed, the service is unlikely to achieve much-needed improvements, centred around a clear focus on how best to manage, and ultimately reduce, risk.  

• Our 2023-24 Annual Report revealed variable performance in adult prisons in England and Wales, with particularly poor outcomes in purposeful activity.[1]
  • 28% of prisons were ‘Not Sufficiently Good’ or ‘Poor’ for Safety.
  • 28% of prisons were ‘Not Sufficiently Good’ or ‘Poor’ for Respect.
  • 79% of prisons were ‘Not Sufficiently Good’ or ‘Poor’ for Purposeful Activity.
  • 44% of prisons were ‘Not Sufficiently Good’ or ‘Poor’ for Preparation for release.
• Many of the issues raised in our 2023-24 Annual Report have continued to be a concern during inspections in 2024, with some of the key areas that relate to prison estate capacity highlighted below.
  
  [1] HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2023-24

Early days in custody and illicit drugs

• In many reception jails induction processes and the early days in custody have been under increased pressure, sometimes resulting in negative outcomes.
• At HMP Durham, the cramped reception area was busy with over 5,700 new arrivals in the last year and more than 5,000 returning from court or other external appointments. These volumes had led to some gaps during the early days. For example, many of those arriving after 8.30pm did not receive a health care assessment or a safety interview, which was a significant risk given that 40% of those who responded to our survey said they felt suicidal when they first arrived and many had health problems, including drug and alcohol dependency.[1]
• At HMP Wandsworth inspectors found admission procedures under immense strain due to the jail receiving on average 130 prisoners each week, leading to delays and inefficiencies at every stage. Prisoners who arrived in crisis did not have access to a Listener and inspectors found long delays in creating a telephone PIN number so that prisoners could contact family and friends, with some having to wait weeks.[2]
• The prevalence of illicit drugs and violence in prisons is a growing concern. In some jails, changes to the population appear to have contributed to heightened challenges with drugs. For example, HMP Kirkham had received a large influx of category C prisoners, some of whom were not suitable for open conditions.[3] More commonly, our inspection reports note that work to address the factors that could cause illicit drug demand, such as prisoners being bored when not in work or education, are often not well developed. As detailed below, ensuring there are sufficient activity places for a prison’s population is crucial, but this is harder to achieve when prisons are receiving more prisoners than originally intended.  
  
  [1] HMP Durham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] HMP Kirkham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

Time out of cell and education, skills and work

• In 2023-24, purposeful activity continued to be the worst performing area that we inspect. 31 of the 39 adult prisons we inspected were poor or not sufficiently good in this area.[1] Poor time out of cell was particularly acute in men’s reception prisons, where 50% of prisoners reported spending more than 22 hours in their cells on a typical weekday – rising to 72% at weekends.[2]
• The consequences of limited time out of cell and access to education, skills and work opportunities are wide-ranging from boredom to frustration, with significant implications for prisoners’ chances of successful reintegration back into the community on release. Prisoners themselves tell us that limited time out of cell negatively impacts on their physical and mental health, their perceptions of staff and their own views of the likelihood of them reoffending.[3]
• Despite some excellent inspections in closed prisons such as HMP Rye Hill and HMP Oakwood, which allocated almost all prisoners to full-time work or education, and some positive results in the open estate, many inspections in 2024 showed little signs of improvement in purposeful activity, with availability of spaces often a concern.
• A shortage of activity spaces was reported across the different function types. In reception prisons the issue was raised in inspections including HMP Durham and HMP Nottingham. At HMP Wandsworth there were only enough full-time and part-time activity spaces for around half the prison population and even then leaders estimated that between 60% and 70% of prisoners were unemployed.[4] Concerningly, we also found a lack of activity places and too many unemployed prisoners in many training prisons, such as HMP/YOI Swinfen Hall and HMP/YOI Erlestoke. At HMP Rochester less than a third of the population were engaged in activity during the working day.[5] Resettlement prisons such as HMP Brixton also had insufficient full-time education, skills and work activity places for their population.
• Ambitious leadership is required if more prisons are to deliver more productive regimes. However, achieving improvement in this area is challenging when prison leaders are being asked to take on more prisoners, often without corresponding increases in either staff or infrastructure. Too many jails do not have enough space for the population they hold.
• A lack of space also has wide-ranging implications outside of education, skills and work. For example, at HMP Durham inspectors found some positive group work that was being offered to prisoners to support their mental health, but it was limited by a lack of space within the prison to hold the groups.[6]
  
  [1] Annual Report 2023-24 – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] Purposeful prisons: time out of cell – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] Purposeful prisons: time out of cell – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [4] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [5] HMP Rochester – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [6] HMP Durham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

Living conditions

• We expect prisoners to live in a clean and decent environment which is in a good state of repair and fit for purpose. As in previous years, many prisons, especially inner-city Victorian prisons, continue to accommodate significantly more prisoners than they were initially designed for, with negative consequences on many aspects of prisoners’ daily lives.
• Particularly overcrowded prisons included HMP Durham, where 86% of prisoners lived in overcrowded conditions[1], HMP Cardiff where nearly two-thirds of the population lived in overcrowded conditions[2], HMP/YOI Chelmsford where 69% of prisoners shared cells designed for one person[3] and HMP Wandsworth, where around 80% of prisoners shared cramped cells designed for one, with the population having expanded to over 1,500 prisoners, up from 1,364 at the time of the previous inspection.[4] We reported on issues with overcrowding, to various extents, at many other jails including HMP Nottingham, HMP Brixton, HMP Hull, HMP Wymott, HMP Peterborough (men) and HMP Buckley Hall.
• Issues with poor ventilation, damp, mould, and vermin remain common. A lack of effective screening around many toilets is a particular concern given how many cells hold two prisoners, with many men in jails such as HMP Wandsworth in them for over 22 hours a day. We have also noted a lack of lockable cabinets in cells for prisoners to store property or medication safely in various prisons.
• We regularly raise the need for often significant additional investment to improve living conditions. Population pressures only add to the urgency of this work being carried out, whilst simultaneously making maintenance of prison buildings harder as spaces that might otherwise be condemned are required to be used. For example, inspectors found that units at HMP Rochester that had previously been identified for closure remained open following population pressures – prisoners and staff therefore had to grapple with frequent failures of the electrical system, damaged flooring and leaking sinks and toilets.[5] The scale of the maintenance challenge is illustrated by jails like HMP Wandsworth, which, at the time of inspection, had over 900 outstanding jobs in its facilities log.[6]
  
  [1] HMP Durham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Cardiff – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] HMP/YOI Chelmsford – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [4] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [5] HMP Rochester – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [6] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

Prisoner progression, family ties & resettlement support

• Population pressures continue to have wide-ranging implications on prisoner progression through the custodial estate. Progressive moves are harder to achieve when space is limited, for example at HMP Rochester we found that prisoners faced long waits to transfer to other Category C prisons due to population pressures and similarly at HMP Garth we reported on lengthy waits for progressive moves.[1] At various prisons we noted issues with accessing offending behaviour programmes, for example at HMP The Verne, HMP Lindholme and HMP Whatton.
• Visits from prisoners’ families are important to maintain relationships and improve the likelihood of successful reintegration on release. However, population pressures mean many prisoners are being held further from home resulting in families finding it expensive and difficult to visit. At HMP Hull about 20% of prisoners now came from outside Yorkshire and Humberside. Inspectors talked to families who had driven for two or three hours to visit, only to find the start time was delayed which reduced the time left for the visit.[2] At HMP Frankland most prisoners were held some distance from their home area, and only 17% of respondents to our survey said that they had received a social visit more than once in the last month.[3]
• The changing make-up of the population of some prisons has significant implications for resettlement provision. At our IRP of HMP Peterborough (men), HMPPS was about to increase the proportion of men held on remand to 82%, a significant increase from about 50% or so. Inspectors concluded that a rise in a more transient population from areas that were further afield would inevitably present further challenges in delivering resettlement help.[4] Other prisons where we noted rising remand populations and gaps in the support available to them included HMP Wandsworth and HMP Belmarsh.
  
  [1] HMP Rochester – HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HMP Garth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Hull – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] HMP Frankland – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [4] HMP Peterborough (Men) – HM Inspectorate of Prisons