Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

No wonder there is little focus on purposeful activity. After all, measures such as education and skills training, or measures to help prisoners with their mental health, or with drug, alcohol or gambling addictions, are hard to provide in overcrowded, understaffed, dilapidated and underresourced prisons where governors have inadequate freedom to govern. Too often, prisoners can spend up to 23 hours a day in cramped cells, with little to help them lead constructive, crime-free lives when they leave. It is these conditions which also lead to boredom, self-harm, frustration and increased violence in our prisons. All this costs the taxpayer £54,000 per year per prisoner, with seemingly little benefit.

We considered each of the barriers and made recommendations to reduce them. On overcrowding, we largely welcome the Gauke review and the measures that flowed into the Sentencing Act from it. However, some measures will place increased strain on an already overstretched Probation Service, and we remain sceptical about whether the planned £700 million over four years for the Probation Service will be sufficient. Last week’s PAC report suggests that it agrees. It said the service was under “significant strain”, seriously impeding its ability to protect the public and reduce reoffending.

Nevertheless, we especially welcome plans to introduce community sentences instead of most prison sentences of under 12 months. We made just this proposal in one of our earlier reports, where we pointed out that well-run, probation-led community sentences have lower levels of reoffending and cost significantly less. Under the structure of HMPPS, the Prison Service and the Probation Service are linked. If, with increased resources and staffing, the Probation Service can successfully keep more people out of prison, the Prison Service can then more easily improve purposeful activity for those still sent to prison.

But the Sentencing Act measures alone are insufficient. It is estimated that, over time, they will reduce the prison population demand by 7,500, and the new prison building programme will deliver 14,000 new places by 2031. But despite all that, it is still estimated that, by 2029, the prison population will have increased by 2,000. That is why some of our other recommendations are so important and why the committee was so disappointed by the Government’s rather complacent response.

The Government accepted or partially accepted 34 of our 35 recommendations. That might seem like a job well done but, alas, that is far from the truth. The Government claim that many of the recommendations are already work in progress. Yet, in the majority of these cases, we fail to see either the work or the progress. For example, the Government accepted our recommendation to implement women’s leadership groups and support for female staff but then bizarrely, implying nothing further was actually needed, went on to say:

“HMPPS have reviewed our policies and are content that they are sufficient to address the needs of women”.

Our recommendations regarding prison governors also illustrate the point. Just as a good head teacher, with the right support, can transform a school, so too can a prison governor, with the right support, transform a prison. But prison governors need the freedom to act, so we called for increased governor autonomy so that those running prisons, who best understand the needs of their staff, prisoners and community, can implement desperately needed changes. In this case, the work in progress was a report on previous efforts that had not gone anywhere near what the committee or many governors were calling for. To ensure that the governor’s vision can be clearly communicated to staff, we argued for measures that would enable greater visibility of governors around the prison. The Government agreed, but offered nothing concrete. Surely the move to build mega-prisons, such as the 1,700 place HMP Welland Oaks, will serve only to exacerbate the problem.

I hope the Minister, when he winds up, will assure us that the committee’s pessimism is misplaced. But our pessimism is not just that of a discontented suitor who has been rejected; others share it. In the other place, the Justice Committee, referencing the Government’s response to our report, noted:

“It is promising to hear that the Government recognises the value of Governor autonomy, but it is unclear what specific action it will be taking to improve it”.

Benjamin Franklin once said:

“Well done is better than well said”.

When he winds up, can the Minister say what actions in relation to governor autonomy we can look out for?

The responses to other recommendations have been equally disappointing. Clearly, having sufficient well-trained, motivated and supportive staff working in our prisons is vital. But with the prison population rising, it is extremely concerning—but, frankly, not surprising—that so many prison officers are leaving, some after less than a year in service, and that there has been a significant fall in the number of people joining. For example, in the past year there has been a loss of 1,000 band 3 to band 5 prison officers—the ones walking the wings and interacting with prisoners every day. In short, there are more prisoners but fewer staff, and the remaining staff are often disillusioned and demoralised, as evidenced by the very high levels of absence through sickness. An average of two and a half weeks is lost in sickness—often mental health issues—per officer each year. That is simply unsustainable.

The MoJ has at least now resurrected an earlier recruitment campaign that promotes a career in the Prison Service. It says:

“An extraordinary job. Done by someone like you”.

The reality, however, is that a career in the Prison Service is not for everyone, and the recruitment process should reflect that. After all, our report was clear that the current role of prison officers is defined by firefighting and crisis management—asking them to do more with less. No wonder, then, that the number of prisoners released in error has sky-rocketed by 128% this year, from 115 to 262. I hope the Minister will tell us what progress is being made to introduce a digital solution to the problem.

More significantly, we call for a drastic overhaul of officer recruitment and vetting. We were horrified to discover that there are no face-to-face interviews. It is all done online. Very few of those being interviewed had ever been inside a prison, and prison leaders have almost no say about who works in their prison. Despite the high drop-out rate, and all the other evidence pointing to its failings, we were nevertheless told by HMPPS that the process is “robust”. Some noble Lords may have seen reports of a 17 year-old child who, despite being underage, got through the recruitment and vetting procedures, and then was given the task of looking after murderers and terrorists in HMP Erlestoke. That is hardly evidence of a robust system. Does the Minister think that it is robust, and can he tell us what is being done to ensure that staff are properly vetted, that they are aware of the unique challenges of life on the wings and are ready to work?

We also made recommendations about training and support for prison officers. It surely cannot be right, for example, that almost all formal assessment of prison officers’ work has been abandoned. Again, the Government response was muted, and that is a polite way of putting it. Can the Minister be more positive and tell us what changes in training and support are being planned?

One final concern is on the response to our several recommendations about activities to reduce reoffending. Given the Minister’s previous work in this area, there was an enthusiastic response in words but, unfortunately, actions contradicted them. No sooner was the ink dry on the Government’s response than we started to hear about cutbacks in the education provision in many prisons; this provision has been shown to significantly help to reduce reoffending.

Writing about the new prison education contracts in October last year, the chief inspector reported that he had been told that—due to inflationary increases, and some of the funds being used for a new IT system—there would be effective average cuts of 25%. In fact, some prison leaders had told him that cuts in their prison had reached 60%. We now know that around 300 prison education staff have been made redundant. It is one thing to ignore a committee’s recommendation, but it seems perverse that the Government are ignoring their own research; this research shows how important education is to reducing reoffending, and yet they are ploughing ahead with cuts to it. This is not the only failing in providing appropriate purposeful activities: support for inmates with mental health or addiction problems is woeful, and skills training is patchy, doing little to prepare inmates for employment outside. It is prisoners and the public who will suffer the consequences. We need more purposeful activity, not less, and I hope that the Minister can give us some good news about the future situation. We have waited far too long for it.

Since its founding in 1982, the inspectorate has been highly critical of the lack of purposeful activity in prison. In the first ever inspector’s report the chief inspector, Sir James Hennessy, wrote:

“We believe there are powerful reasons why the Prison Department must ensure that an inmate does not spend day after day in blank inactivity; he should be kept occupied for a normal working day at work, education, or some other constructive activity”.

It was not happening 43 years ago and, sadly, is still not happening. It shows why inspectors’ reports should be acted upon more often.

The evidence we receive points to a system beset with problems. Piecemeal and gradual change will not suffice to fix them. HMPPS needs to go further and faster, but the Government’s response to our report was disappointing. It illustrated our concern that the MoJ and HMPPS are far too complacent about what is happening in our prison estate. This is in marked contrast to the Minister. I welcome his zeal and practicality in addressing the many issues in our prisons. I just hope that, in time, his department starts to have the same approach and puts its energies into ensuring the wide-scale provision of measures to reduce reoffending. Only then can we truly have better prisons and less crime. I beg to move.

The last time I felt almost as proud as I do today was in 2018, when I was elected by my partners to be the chair of our law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright, as the first woman and ethnic minority person to hold that role since the firm was established in 1794. My election reflected the huge changes that have taken place in the City since I arrived in 1990, when there were very few people who looked like me or who came from my background. It has been a privilege to be a part of the City for over 35 years. I am keen to ensure that it remains competitive and retains its position as the leading international financial centre, providing a home for talented people of all kinds. That requires us to be an outward-looking, confident society that abides by the rule of law.

I grew up in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, and had assumed that we had moved past the racism and bigotry that I experienced then. In recent years I have seen, with increasing concern, the cynical manipulation of legitimate concerns about declining living standards, inadequate infrastructure and poorly funded public services into a targeting of minority groups who are blamed for wider societal failings.

Those of us who believe in equal rights, a globally connected world and the rules-based order have to accept that the argument is not won, and we must fight harder and better for our values. Yet there are so many things for us all to be proud of. I have the privilege of being vice-chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee, and I am humbled by the generosity and compassion of the British public, who in the last four years have donated over £700 million to its appeals—and that in the midst of a cost of living crisis.

Until very recently, I was chair of the Patchwork Foundation, which supports young people interested in civic society. Each year, as a new cohort of patchworkers arrive, I am deeply encouraged by the passion and principles of our young people who are determined to make the world a better place. I hope that by working with noble Lords across the House I can play my part in helping the patchworkers to achieve that better world and, along the way, satisfy the spirit of the 14 year-old who wanted to be a lawyer so that she could help people.

I turn briefly to two of the critical issues in the Select Committee report. I should mention that, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I joined the committee only in January, so I was not involved with my colleagues in the interviews and the hard work last year that produced the report that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has so eloquently described. But, as a member of the committee, I felt that this is such an important issue that I should raise a couple of critical issues from the report.

I should mention that last year I whipped, very briefly, for the Minister and for the MoJ. I mention that only because it gave me an insight into the work that he, the department and the team are doing. I learned that this is an acutely difficult issue. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, really spelled that out. It is acute, but it also consists of much deeper systemic problems. The report and my colleagues who put it together have adequately explained that.

I want to pick up on two issues. The first is the issue of the prison population and capacity. The second is the critical issue of the number of prison officers, their level of experience, the persistent recruitment and retention challenges, and the consequent effect on the morale of the service. Some of the deeper issues are consequent on that, which our chair mentioned.

The report talks about how deeply rooted the recruitment, retention and experience problems are and how they peaked as this Government took office. That is where we get the idea of crisis. That crisis is still being dealt with, as I learned last year. On prison officer training, I know the Minister was well placed—it has been said—to take on this challenge. Before he took office he conducted a review of prison officer training. I would be interested to know how he feels that that review is informing the work of the department now. Are we making progress on many of the serious issues that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised? Obviously, this speaks to the experience of officers, the challenges identified in the report and what the MoJ is trying to do. I am genuinely interested to know where we are going on that.

On staffing generally, can the Minister update the House on the current status of and any improvements or recovery he has seen in the staffing levels and retention of officers? We are now in 2026, and we have had Royal Assent to the other aspect of dealing with this crisis, sentencing, and creating more capacity. How that is all working is really interesting to me and the committee. It may be a bit too soon to understand how the Sentencing Act and the Gauke review are now affecting the critical issue of capacity and prison places. But it would be interesting to hear what the Minister’s hopes are for that. In my opinion, the report was built around not just criticising what is happening but genuinely looking for solutions to this crisis and to the deeper systemic issues. The Gauke report was an honest way of trying to manage the prison population, but if it is too early to look at the effects of it, I would also be interested to know what other new routes the Minister feels might be taken to address some of the critical acute and systemic problems.

I will leave my remarks at that, knowing that many of my colleagues were involved last year in the hard work of putting the report together.

The second important thing is to create safe spaces throughout those prisons, both to make them a bit more of a pleasant working environment for the security of the staff and for all those many prisoners who can be persuaded to return to a legal life, get a job and make a proper contribution to society when they have completed their term in prison. However, we read in prison reports of all too many cases where prisons are schools for scandal and colleges for crime; they are places where there are thriving entrepreneurial businesses, but for all the wrong things, such as supplying drugs. Surely it must be a priority to get all prisoners off drugs and to manage and provide treatment programmes for those who need drugs. They must not be fuelled and fed by illegitimate businesses within the prison framework.

The third thing that we want, which is touched on at rather greater length in the report, is for more people who leave prison to not want to go back there. They should be given support and help so that they are given training and find it easier to get a job; they should be able to get a bank account and re-establish themselves in normal life, because we do not want to see them in the Prison Service again.

On my wider work on public sector quality and productivity, I believe that quality and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Get it right first time and you do not need a complaints department; get it right first time and you do not waste so much money. In my experiences as an executive councillor in my youth, as a Minister, as a participant in Cabinet and shadow Cabinet debates, and as a Back Bench MP who was very attentive to the public services in my area, I saw all too many examples of poor management, mistakes and error. Time does not permit me to go through my toolkit for mending quality and productivity issues. I look forward to further debates, because it is surely a vital, national, cross-party cause that we should manage better and achieve better results.

In addition, I stated:

“There is a high turnover of staff across the prison system. Governors are moved from prison to prison. This is massively disruptive. … Will the Government seriously consider developing a solid career structure allowing progression within the Prison Service and imposing a fixed minimum term for a prison governor to remain in each post? Heads of learning and skills must be integrated into the system. … They must be given the opportunity to plan for the long term, and not to meet the latest Whitehall target. … We must focus on outcomes rather than outputs if we are to see less reoffending. … The layers of bureaucracy that exist are seriously hindering innovative development in offender education”.

I will read a couple more relevant extracts:

“Even providing an individual with qualifications alone is not enough in the fight to reduce reoffending. This must be coupled with structured learning so that prisoners can develop their ability to communicate and interact. … Like governors, prisoners are moved from prison to prison. … There is a severe knock-on effect from this disruptive approach for the prisoners and the community. … Support and provision must be provided in the community. Forging links with local employers is difficult, but essential. … Offenders need to be equipped with skill trades … in which they can make an honest living with a salary which stands a chance of rivalling an income from drug crime”.

Finally,

“prison education … must start at the beginning. It must deal with the emotional and social problems facing offenders and then move on to qualifications and employable skills”.—[Official Report, 8/12/05; cols. 835-38.]

I made that speech in December 2005, eight years into a Labour Government. The most damning fact was exposed in a reply to a Written Question I had asked Her Majesty’s Government that same week on how many civil servants from the Home Office, broken down by grade, had visited prisons in the last eight years. The answer was none. Since then, the challenges have grown; there is violence and religious extremism in our prisons, with young men—I know some—told to convert to Islam for an easier life behind bars. And how can prison staff be recruited online? This is insanity writ large. In addition, I now have Written Answers confirming that some foreign criminals, who are to be deported at the end of their prison term, are being released from HMP Huntercombe in Oxfordshire because the Home Office paperwork does not keep up with the prisoner release system.

One of the most revealing evidence sessions during our inquiry was with two former Members of the other place: former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and former Justice Secretary Michael Gove, now my noble friend Lord Gove. I was struck—indeed, I think the whole committee was struck—by the degree to which they were in tune with their collective paths and desire to achieve lasting and demonstrably better outcomes for prisoners and prisons to reduce reoffending. As usual, both efforts were cut short by our frankly broken political system shuffling the cards.

Rereading the speech that I made all those years ago, or extracts from it, has been for me quite depressing. I often think of the noble and late Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He would be making the same speech today, I fear, that he made time and again years and years ago. However, I look to the Minister, who I know will understand more than most that the key solutions are, in principle, quite simple—as he set out to teach shoe-repairing following a visit to HMP Thorn Cross in Warrington in 2002. The Minister must be, as I am, an optimist, as he is determined to find and implement solutions to give a real and practical lifeline to prisoners to reduce reoffending.

We recognise this in our committee, and as some of us have been Ministers, we are very aware of how incredibly difficult it is to get things done within our current Civil Service system. It is uphill in treacle, and the pressures are relentless and immense. What we need now is a Government who have the courage to change that system, root out obfuscation—

The purpose of prisons is not clear. There is confusion within government and the HMPPS about the purpose of prisons, because policy and practice are fundamentally misaligned. Prison sentences, incarceration and loss of liberty are the punishment, and the purpose of prisons is to prepare those in custody for life after prison in order to reduce reoffending and help them integrate back into the community, and, ultimately, to protect the public. The first priority, therefore, in my view, is to have absolute clarity on and understanding of the purpose of prisons. If that is properly understood, it would clarify what qualities, skills and experience are needed for those running prisons, be they prison governors or prison officers. What level of autonomy should be given to prisons, and what should be the balance of responsibility between the centre and local prisons?

What relationship should there be between prison and probation services, and the third sector and employers? The relationship between the prison and probation services needs to be clarified and understood. Very poorly thought-through reforms over several years have demoralised the Probation Service and confused its identity. There is, in my view, a shared purpose between the prison and probation services, which is to reduce reoffending and prepare people for life outside the criminal justice system. This needs to be reinforced, and it is encouraging that the Minister is giving support to the Probation Service, although the investment to bring the service up to speed is not adequate.

Secondly, there is a need for clear and effective communication to explain to the public the purpose of prisons. Government has a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons, and an appreciation that those in custody eventually have to be integrated into the community.