We're in a Doom Loop

So it turns out that 80% of all offending is re-offending according to a just published HoC Justice Committee report. In other shock news it seems our prisons are making the situation worse. If we reaffirm that the Probation Service is making matters even worse by simply re-calling to prison thousands of offenders each year, it's pretty clear we are in a 'doom loop' situation "a negative feedback loop where two or more factors worsen each other, leading to a spiraling crisis." 

At what point does a government grasp the nettle and admit the whole UK system is failing, in stark contrast to our European neighbours, and face the obvious reality that building more prisons and tagging everyone is just going to make the problem even bigger? 

‘Dire’ prison conditions putting rehabilitation and reoffending reduction ‘at risk’, Justice Committee warns

Prison overcrowding, staffing shortages and deteriorating infrastructure is having a ‘profound impact on the ability of prisons to deliver rehabilitation’, a new report published today (November 14) by the Justice Committee has said.

Read the report
Read the report (PDF)
Rehabilitation and Reoffending
Justice Committee

MPs on the cross-party committee called on the Government to set out how it will ensure that rehabilitation is not compromised or deprioritised, alongside how it intends to manage demand and supply. These ‘failures risk undermining the very purpose of imprisonment, to reduce reoffending’, the Committee warned.

80% of all offending in England and Wales is reoffending with ‘growing concerns about persistently high’ rates, the report cautioned, adding it is unacceptable that 50 per cent of prisoners are not involved in prison education or work, despite the high level of need across the adult estate.

Conditions
Prisons are in a ‘state of disrepair’, the report concluded, with the Committee stating it was shocked by the dire living conditions that many prisoners are living in and deeply concerning to hear that prisons may be in violation of human rights legislation. Dilapidated buildings and broken infrastructure limit access to rehabilitative spaces and contribute to poor mental health.

Despite recent capital investment, it remains unclear how the Government intends to address the scale of the £1.8 billion maintenance backlog, the report said. It called on the Government to provide a clear breakdown of how funding will be used to address this backlog, and to ensure that future investment is targeted at improving prison conditions with access to rehabilitative activities in mind.

Time out of cell
The report found a ‘widespread failure’ to meet the statutory minimum for time out of cell. Many prisoners are locked up for 22 hours or more each day, with limited access to fresh air, showers, or rehabilitative activities.

This lack of time out of cell undermines efforts to reduce reoffending and contributes to poor mental health and disengagement, it added. Purposeful activity, including education, work, and offending behaviour programmes, is central to rehabilitation, yet it is inconsistently delivered and often deprioritised – notably for IPP prisoners.

MPs called for a renewed focus on ensuring all prisoners have access to meaningful activity, and for time out of cell to be formalised, standardised, and its data to be published going forward.

HMPPS must closely monitor prisons that are failing to meet the statutory minimum and provide urgent support to enable compliance, the Committee added.

Staffing
Staffing levels, high turnover, poor recruitment processes, and limited professional development have contributed to a culture that hinders rehabilitation, the report said.

The Committee recommended prison staff should receive training at least annually, with more frequent support as they progress through their careers. Governors lack the autonomy to lead effectively, and the current staffing model is unsustainable, MPs warned.
Education

The Committee said it was ‘alarmed’ by reports of real-term cuts to prison education budgets of up to 50 per cent and urged the Government to clarify the rationale of any planned budget reductions.

It must set out how it plans to ensure that all prisons retain the funding necessary to deliver core education provision. The report concluded prison education is underfunded as is and poorly delivered, adding participation rates are low and neurodivergent prisoners are not adequately supported.

75 per cent of prisons inspected by Ofsted in 2024/25 were rated 'inadequate' or 'showing no improvement'. The Government, MPs said, must publish a clear plan to improve both participation and quality in prison education.

This should include steps to address poor Ofsted outcomes, ensure that all prisoners, including those on remand, have access to meaningful education, and improve data collection on attendance and provision across the estate.

Education on the youth estate is also in a state of decline, the report concluded. Children in Youth Offending Institutions are entitled to 15 hours of education per week, yet the Committee heard that this minimum is routinely not met.

The report called on the MoJ to set out how it will address the operational barriers to education delivery, including staffing, behaviour management, and keep apart arrangements and ensure that education is prioritised as a core component of the youth custody regime.
Remand prisoners

Despite comprising 20 per cent of the prison population, the highest level in at least 50 years, remand prisoners often spend extended periods in custody, only to be released directly from court following a conviction without any support or intervention.

This raises serious concerns about how the Government expects these individuals to avoid reoffending. Remand prisoners should have access to all parts of the regime, should they choose to participate, MPs recommended.

Contracting
Current contracting and the procurement system within HMPPS is inefficient, the report warned. Poorly designed and inflexible contracts are limiting the ability of voluntary and specialist providers to deliver effective rehabilitation services.

The system is not fit for purpose and risks undermining both prison management and rehabilitative outcomes. MPs called on the Government to provide the Committee with a clear and comprehensive overview of how HMPPS is managing its current contracts, including steps being taken to simplify procurement processes and improve contract flexibility.

Governors should receive training on procurement and contracting, the Committee added.

Well-being
Health and wellbeing services are failing to meet the needs of prisoners, the report said, adding mental health support is inconsistent, and operational pressures prevent timely access to care.

Women in prison face acute and complex health needs, yet the system is not providing even basic support. The Committee called on the Government to outline a clear plan for how it will meet the health and wellbeing needs of the women currently in its care.

Chair comment
Chair of the Justice Committee and Labour MP Andy Slaughter MP said:

“Prison rehabilitation and efforts to break the cycle of reoffending aren’t working and cannot succeed in a system which is facing critical pressures on so many fronts.

“The Committee’s report reveals an overcrowded, short staffed, crumbling prison estate where the long-term focus on rehabilitation is often lost in an over-stretched environment which is grappling day to day to function.

“Capacity issues are leading to prisoners languishing for 22 hours a day in cells as the remand population grows and reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. It cannot be right that those that do choose to engage in rehabilitative activities are worse off due to the prisons’ failure, and their limited access to time out of cell is reduced to choosing between a shower, a hot meal or fresh air.

The current conditions in youth custody settings are deplorable, and it is shameful that access to education for children has deteriorated as part of this wider decline.

“Ministers must act fast to fix the basics and give greater attention to purposeful rehabilitation programmes across jails. Continuing with a cyclical system in crisis mode which offers little real opportunity to turn around prisoners’ lives is a false economy.”

Fair and Sustainable to Blame?

We all know there's a crisis in the prison system and I was struck by the following contribution posted yesterday:- 

Problems in staffing prisons go back many years and include the introduction of a two tier system for pay, terms and conditions known as ‘Fair and Sustainable.’ (FAST). Essentially, you could undergo career progression if you agreed to a new contract of employment which offered lesser terms and conditions. 

The old hands quite rightly refused because of the impact upon pensions and as a consequence, were not allowed to apply for permanent promotion, although many were given ‘temporary,’ or ‘acting,’ positions which they kept for years.

What happened next was that young or inexperienced officers, denied pay progression because of austerity, applied for promotion to grades they wouldn’t normally be qualified for, and in the absence of any competition, they got the job.

The problems on the wings became enormous and over time, the longer serving members of staff left or retired. This is a part explanation for the exodus, but of course, as with probation, the problems are multi-fold and the solutions complex.

The most obvious solution in my mind would be, don’t try to screw your staff and introduce change by negotiation, consultation, and listening. Who knows, the idea might rub off on other areas of the CJS.

Of course the man in charge was hugely optimistic in 2012:- 

Fair and sustainable 

Revision to proposals for working structures in HM Prison Service following the consultation with trade unions

Foreword 

This document sets out a revised set of plans following consultation with our trades unions, staff associations and our broader engagement with staff. Since we launched Fair and sustainable in November 2011, we have met with hundreds of staff and received feedback and questions from hundreds more. This process of consultation and listening has been essential in helping us identify gaps and issues in our plans which we have sought to address where possible. 

The feedback that you and your union representatives have provided collectively has helped us improve our thinking and clarify our plans. As a result we have made a number of amendments that we believe will enhance the ambitions of these plans to be both sustainable for the future and particularly make our plans even fairer for current staff. 

These amendments are set out in the beginning of this document but include: the retention of the non-consolidated payments for Staff Personal Development Record (SPDR) performance for eligible staff remaining on current terms and conditions; an acknowledgement of the impact of the changes to local pay allowances, with the provision of a compensation package on promotion within affected sites; and moving the transition timetable to allow DPSMs to complete their Job Similation Assessment Centre (JSAC) before selection to roles takes place.

I hope that you are now clear that the plans for new terms and conditions set out in Fair and sustainable only relate to pay arrangements – that is salary, hours, pay point progression allowances, and payments. Unless you opt-in to the new terms and conditions set out in this document, Fair and sustainable makes no changes to your current pay. Nor does Fair and sustainable impact on any other parts of terms and conditions such as leave entitlement, sickness or pensions.

In an environment of increased competition and diverse market for the provision of offender services these plans remain absolutely vital for the ongoing competitiveness of HM Prison Service. The future presents a clear challenge for the Service, and these plans represent the Service’s intelligent and necessary response. 

It is this fact that has driven a very productive relationship with all trades unions to deliver their support for these plans which, for the POA, was validated by a ballot of their members who voted overwhelmingly to endorse Fair and sustainable. In introducing these changes we have been clear that our aim is to avoid compulsary redundancies as far as possible. The transitional measures set out in this document which we have agreed with trade unions, mean that we are now in a good position to do that. 

Preparations are now underway to introduce these plans in establishments. New structures will be in place for April 2013, when staff will all be working in their new roles, to new job descriptions which have all been assessed by the new job evaluation system (JES). 

To get there we have a clear and structured process to guide all prisons through the transition as smoothly as possible. However, I do not under-estimate the impact that this will have on all of you, and the Service in general. This is not just about structural change but, much more importantly, about moving to a new, and better, way of working. To do this we will need to manage this change in a way that is fair and decent to our staff and protects the spirit, pride and strong delivery that defines HM Prison Service. I am determined that we will achieve this.

Michael Spurr

Chief Executive Officer

Symptoms of a Failing System

Just caught up with this from the Institute for Government:-

The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system

The problems in criminal justice run far deeper than one high-profile error. The dramatic rise in prisoners released in error is just one aspect of a collapsing criminal justice system, argues Cassia Rowland

Prisons are rarely at the top of the political news cycle – and when they are, it’s never good news. The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu, the former asylum seeker whose charge and conviction for sexual assault triggered violent unrest in Essex this summer, was the last thing the government needed in a week already full of negative headlines. But the dire state of prisons means it was just a matter of time until something like this happened.

Prisons are failing at their most basic requirements

In this year’s Public Services Performance Tracker we highlight just how bad things are in prisons. Prisons are often dangerous and overrun with drugs. A quarter of prisoners are kept in cells that do not meet fire safety standards1 and rates of violence are skyrocketing. There were more than 30,000 assaults in 2024 – equating to one incident for every three prisoners. And more than one in ten of those are serious, including those resulting in concussions, burns and broken bones.

Conditions are inhumane. Prisoners struggle to get toilet paper for their cells or sometimes have to choose between a hot meal and a shower. Two-thirds of prisoners are locked in their cells for at least 18 hours a day, with little access to education or employment. In this context, it is little wonder that prison releases have also been affected. The number of releases ‘in error’ has jumped dramatically, rising to 262 in 2024/25: more than double the previous year and almost four and half times what it was ten years before.

Staff inexperience, policy changes and the ongoing capacity crisis are all contributing to these failures

The blame for mistaken releases can partly be laid on staff inexperience. More than half of prison officers in March 2025 had been in the job less than five years, compared to just 22% in March 2010. A quarter had less than two years’ experience.4 Inexperienced officers may be more likely to make mistakes and are less likely to have the confidence to speak up if it seems like something’s not right.

Calculating a prisoner’s release date has also become much more complicated. Until 2020, almost all prisoners serving a fixed length sentence were released halfway through their sentence, serving the rest under probation supervision in the community.

Now, some offenders are released automatically after 40% of their sentence, some after 50%, some after 66%; others simply become eligible to apply to be released after half or two thirds of their sentence. The operational guidance for calculating when a prisoner should be released is 144 pages long – and doesn’t even cover the emergency early release measures used over the last two years.

But the biggest reason for the increase is the capacity crisis and the emergency release measures governments have been forced to adopt to manage it. Since the 2000s, successive governments, of all stripes, have failed to build enough prison places to meet growing demand while the Ministry of Justice suffered steep cuts during the 2010s, including both day-to-day spending and prison maintenance and expansion.

Under the Sunak government, prisons took an ad hoc approach to early releases, letting prisoners out days or weeks early at very short notice to free up space as they needed it. Labour’s scheme to release most prisoners after 40% of their sentence has been fairer and more predictable, but has still made it more complicated to figure out when prisoners should be released. The churn in the prison population has also risen sharply, with more people coming in and out of prison and lots more people being recalled to prison after release. This again makes it more difficult keeping track of who is coming into prison and when they need to be released.

The government needs to keep focusing on fixing the systemic problems

We don’t know exactly what went wrong in this specific instance, and it was a particularly serious failing given the seriousness of the offences and because Kebatu should have been deported, rather than simply being released a few days or weeks early. The justice secretary, David Lammy, is right to want to know precisely how this happened.

Given the increasing complexity of calculating prisoners’ release dates, introducing additional checks is probably sensible – depending on what exactly they are. Having all ‘high profile’ releases reviewed by the Ministry of Justice, as has been suggested, seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but there may be other safeguards that can be introduced without creating unnecessary admin.

The most important task, however, is getting the prison system back on its feet. That means reducing pressure on prison spaces. The Sentencing Bill, currently making its way through parliament, will help with that, but capacity will remain on a knife edge until at least late 2027. Crucially, making a success of the reforms requires substantial investment in community sentences and rehabilitation, to provide courts with an effective alternative to prison and keep people from bouncing in and out of custody. Without that, the prison system will remain under acute pressure and further errors like this one will be more and more likely.

Cassia Rowland

Related content The crisis in prisons

More Problems with Sentencing Bill

I note the Howard League has raised another problem with the government's Sentencing Bill:-

Earned regression? Howard League outlines concern about government’s prison reforms

The government’s flagship proposal to address prison overcrowding risks ending in failure because it relies on a flawed and unfair punishment process that could lead to people being released without supervision or support, a briefing published by the Howard League for Penal Reform warns today (Tuesday 4 November).

Ministers have set out plans to tackle the prisons crisis in a Sentencing Bill, which is being scrutinised in Parliament. The draft legislation includes a proposal to introduce an ‘earned progression’ model that would enable some people to be released from prison one-third of the way through their sentences.

But the Howard League briefing, Earned regression?, explains how the proposal, which was recommended by an Independent Sentencing Review led by former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, may result in further overcrowding and injustice in the prison system because of the way the government has decided to implement it.

The problem lies in a decision by ministers to take a flawed existing internal punishment process in prisons – through which some people can be given additional days of imprisonment – and make it the cornerstone of the new policy. The proposed arrangements would double the number of additional days that people can receive for breaches of prison rules, putting more pressure on capacity, and leave open the possibility that some are released from custody without supervision.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

“The prison system is on the brink. Ministers commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review and introduced proposed new legislation in Parliament because they understood that change was needed to address the capacity crisis.

“But in proposing greater use of additional days of imprisonment, they risk making the problems even worse. This blunt instrument only adds to the injustice and distress that exists within the prison system, and it contributes directly to the chronic overcrowding that prevents people receiving the help they need to move on from crime.

“Most worryingly, this ill-considered proposal opens the possibility that people who have demonstrated particularly challenging behaviour in prison will be released into the community without any support or supervision, at a risk to public safety.

“Given other jurisdictions such as Scotland do not use additional days of imprisonment at all, the Howard League remains of the view that they are counter-productive and should be abolished. But if ministers are set on making them the cornerstone of their new earned progression model, then at the very least the proposal to double the amount of additional days that can be awarded per incident, with no upper ceiling on how many days can be handed out, should be dropped.

“There is also an opportunity to tackle longstanding concerns about procedural fairness in the adjudications process.”

Additional days of imprisonment are a form of punishment awarded through prison disciplinary procedures. If someone serving a determinate sentence is found to have breached a prison rule, they can have days added to their time in custody by an external adjudicator, usually a district judge. Additional days are not treated in the same way as sentences handed down by the criminal courts, which have release part of the way through and the remainder of the sentence on licence; people serve the entire period of additional days in prison.

Currently, the maximum number of additional days that can be imposed on someone for one incident is 42; the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has indicated that it intends to double this to 84. The draft legislation also suggests that there will be no cap on the total number that can be awarded to someone on the earned progression model – in spite of a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review that there should be a halfway point limit on how long someone can be kept in custody on additional days.

The Howard League briefing explains how the planned changes raise significant public safety concerns. The lack of an upper limit would make it possible for people in prison to receive so many additional days that they reach the end of their sentence and get released into the community without any form of supervision from probation. Similarly, doubling the number of additional days that can be awarded would mean people get to their sentence end date twice as fast.

The briefing also reveals how the additional days process is unfair and ineffective in maintaining good order and discipline. As additional days can only be awarded to people on determinate sentences (not those serving indeterminate sentences, civil orders and Detention and Training Orders, nor people on remand), they fuel a sense of injustice and unequal treatment behind bars.

Resentment is likely to rise even higher under the government’s proposed changes, as it appears that the harsher additional days structure will apply even to people who are excluded from the earned progression model, including more than 9,000 people on extended determinate sentences and children. The briefing states that this is unfair and a “bizarre” approach to take when the prison capacity crisis is so acute.

MoJ figures show that the number of additional days awarded rose by 56% to 108,366 last year – totalling almost 297 years of imprisonment. The briefing raises concern that this number will soar if additional days become the default mechanism for enforcing the earned progression model in prisons.

Running Hot and Under Strain

Given the continuing news coming out regarding wrongful prison releases, it's probably a good idea to publish the following Press Release from the Prison Governors Association:-

PRISON GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION – RELEASES IN ERROR

Releases in Error (RiEs) are neither rare nor hidden 

As with our statement regarding HMP Chelmsford on 27 October 2025, today’s message is not about the details of this individual case. It is a renewed call to focus attention on the wider and worsening conditions across our prison estate. We will not be making comments on the specifics in this case, or that at Chelmsford. 

Releases in Errors are openly reported by the Government in the HMPPS Annual Digest — the most recent edition is available here HMPPS Annual Digest 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. They are not new; they have occurred under every government’s watch and have occurred under every iteration of HMPPS. 

Most practitioners, informed commentators, and impartial experts recognise this. They understand the inherent complexity of the case management process, a system with multiple points of failure, limited automation, and a heavy reliance on human intervention. These processes span multiple parts of the criminal justice system, not just within prisons. The current case management model is both complex and under-resourced. These conditions make errors not just possible, but predictable. 

The prison system, like the wider criminal justice system, is under unprecedented and sustained pressure. This is not pressure felt in isolation — prisons are interconnected. While some establishments may be coping better than others, the strain is systemic. Decisions made to stabilise one prison — such as reducing capacity or increasing staffing — often have unintended, negative consequences elsewhere. Today, it feels as though every move to ease pressure in one part of the system simply shifts the burden to another. Most interventions over recent years to manage capacity has seen increase pressure on case management systems. 

Despite a recent reduction in the overall prison population, overcrowding remains acute. Around 10,000 people are still held in overcrowded conditions. Crucially, the available space is not in reception prisons like Chelmsford or Wandsworth, which are among the most overcrowded and experience the highest levels of prisoner movement. According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, HMP Wandsworth is operating at 167% of its safe capacity, Chelmsford is at 133% of its safe capacity. The Howard League | Prisons 

Between January and March 2025, 13,296 people were released from prison sentences. In the same period, there were 23,154 prisoner transfers — excluding court movements. By a crude measure, it would be likely to see in one year over 52,000 sentenced people released from prison and 92,000 transferred between prisons. 

These figures reflect a system running hot, and under constant strain. Offender management statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK

The scale of Releases in Error (RiEs) is deeply concerning. In the last full reporting year, 262 prisoners were released in error, averaging around 65 incidents per quarter. These errors include individuals released either too early or too late from their sentence, both scenarios carry serious consequences and undermine public confidence. HMPPS Annual Digest 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK 

Currently, around 0.5% of prisoners are not released on the correct date. While that may appear to be a small percentage, in a system managing tens of thousands of releases and transfers each quarter, it does represent a significant operational failure. The conditions required to reduce this figure to zero simply do not exist.

Achieving a zero-error outcome would demand substantial investment in staff training, modern IT infrastructure, and recruitment, all within a system already stretched by competing priorities. Successive governments have accepted this level of risk for decades. In that context, it feels disingenuous to see politicians attempt to extract political gain from a prison system in crisis.

Recent safety in custody statistics also lay bare the complexity and dangers within our prison system. Prisons are high-risk environments, not only for those who live in them, but for the staff who work tirelessly within them. Much must change before these institutions can truly become places of reform. The challenges we face in custody are not isolated. They are symptoms of deeper, systemic issues across society. It is unrealistic to expect a struggling, violent prison system to single-handedly reduce reoffending. 

Levels of extreme violence in prisons are rising — including incidents of homicide. Violence directed towards staff is increasing, and rates of self-harm among people in custody continue to climb. These are not isolated trends; they reflect a system under immense strain. 

There is no silver bullet to improve safety outcomes. What works in one prison can produce adverse effects in another. Austerity introduced a benchmarked prison system that levelled down resources and stripped away individualised regimes. This has left many establishments without the flexibility they need to respond to local challenges. 

We continue to advocate for greater autonomy and operational freedom for our members — provided they are properly funded to do so. Empowering local leadership is essential to restoring safety, stability, and dignity across the prison estate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-june2025/safety-in-custody-statistics-england-and-wales-deaths-in-prison-custody-toseptember-2025-assaults-and-self-harm-to-june-2025 

Our members and colleagues across HMPPS continue to do their utmost to keep the prison system afloat. At times, it feels like this is against all odds and despite the limited contribution from successive governments to properly enable and resource the service the public rightly expects. 

Our commitment remains clear: we will work with any political party or government willing to find meaningful solutions to improve conditions in our prisons. We all have a vested interest in making this system safer, fairer, and more effective. But while political parties showboat and grandstand, the real risk to the public is not being effectively managed — despite the relentless efforts of those working within HMPPS.

A Shot Across the Bows

Thanks go to regular 'Getafix contributor for pointing us in the direction of the following shot across the bows from Their Lordships:- 

Probation Service being set up to fail with tagging expansion, says Lords committee

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee today publishes a letter to the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and the Minister for Border Security and Asylum. In the letter, the Committee sets out its concerns about the woefully inadequate resources promised by the Government, and the absence of a new Electronic Monitoring (EM) strategy.The Committee also believes additional issues must be addressed before EM achieves its potential.

• Outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into the use of Electronic Monitoring (EM): policy letter dated 5 November 2025 from the Chair to the Home Office and Ministry of Justice
• Inquiry: Investigation into electronic monitoring
• Justice and Home Affairs Committe

The letter

Electronic Monitoring (EM, commonly called tagging) is likely to double once the Sentencing Bill becomes law. This will require a significant increase in funding for the Probation Service, not least for additional staff and training.

It also requires a new EM strategy with a clearly defined purpose for how the Government believes EM should be used. Without such a strategy and additional funding, the probation service is being set up to fail, according to the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

In its letter, the Committee finds:

• Poor communication to the Judiciary and the public by the Government, about the purpose and benefits of EM
• Insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of much of the use of EM, with evidence produced by the Government too often focusing on pilot studies and short-term reviews showing little to no evidence of quantifiable success
• Potential inability of current private contractors to handle the increase in those subject to EM
• Ethical concerns around the use of EM in some contexts, particularly its use in immigration bail
• Major concerns about the underwhelming, and at times dire, performance of the private sector providing EM services.
• Failure to fully grasp the opportunities provided by new technologies.

Chair's comments

Lord Foster of Bath, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee said:

“The Probation Service needs more funding, and many more well-trained staff if there is to be a successful EM expansion. Without this, the Probation Service is being set up to fail.

“It is startling that the Government is promoting the biggest expansion of EM in a generation at a time of great technological advancement yet does not see fit to accompany this with a new strategy.

“There is also a new presumption that all prison leavers will be subject to EM on their release from custody. This blanket approach to tagging, regardless of crime and circumstances, diminishes the role of effective, targeted probation interventions, and risks creating an unethical system that is overly punitive and disproportionate.

“Alongside a major boost in funding and training, and a reassessment of procurement and contract management, a new EM strategy is crucial. At a time when the use of EM is changing, with numbers almost doubling and the intention to tag most prison leavers ‘at source’, the Government must reassess its approach to EM. The rise of new technologies, including non-fitted devices and AI, further highlight the importance of a new strategy, one which clearly defines the purpose of EM to both the judiciary and the public.

“We look forward to the Government’s response to the observations and recommendations in this letter.”

Custody and Community Debate

From time to time contributions come in that seem particularly noteworthy, but are in danger of being 'lost' in amongst a number of matters being discussed. I'm not a user of Linkedin, but I feel the following discussions seem worthy of note and consideration:- 

This may need to be added over a few comments. I came across an interesting discussion on LinkedIn today about the widening divide between custody and community perspectives on probation training, recruitment, and retention. On one side, a custody SPO (and others) argue that prison staff should not only be paid more than community staff to train as probation officers, but also recognised as stronger rehabilitation professionals, even suggesting that Napo should be absorbed into the POA. On the other, a community SPO (and others) respond highlighting the distinct skills, ethos, and culture of probation practice, stressing that the real focus should be on fair pay, retention, and valuing the unique role of probation staff. Then there are those who sit somewhere in between.

My own view? Frankly, I’m not surprised by the custody SPO’s position, it reflects the wider tone of HMPPS towards probation. You can’t justify paying one group more to complete the same training others are paid less for. And the worst thing probation could do right now is move closer to the prison model, when in truth, it should be finding its way back to independence from it, and back towards social work values. I agree that Napo, in its current form, holds little weight to support probation staff, but that says more about its poor leadership and lack of clear identity and silly name, than about the need for a strong, dedicated union.

There’s a reason why probation models and youth justice services that use social workers are thriving. How difficult would it really be to take the £700 million set aside for tagging and AI, and instead invest it into a 20% pay rise across all probation bands, while giving all qualified probation officers and senior probation officers the all expenses paid fast track option to top up their qualifications to align with a Diploma in Social Work? That’s not radical, it’s just common sense. Probation recruitment and retention would go through the roof.Either way, it’s an important debate, and if you’re on LinkedIn (for what it’s worth), you might want to join in too.

The discussion:

Senior Probation Officer - OMiC writes:

From Custody to Community: How Joined-Up Thinking Could Solve the Retention Crisis:

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is facing a serious staffing challenge. Recent data shows that around 12% of prison officers left the service in the past year, while around 7% of probation officers also moved on.

The qualification issue: 

Within HMPPS, the early-career routes couldn’t look more different. On the custody side, you’ve got the Unlocked Graduates scheme — a two-year leadership programme aimed at high-calibre graduates, often including a master’s in Applied Custodial Leadership. These officers work directly on the landings, managing behaviour, leading culture change and helping people in custody turn a corner.

Then there’s the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) — the pathway to becoming a fully qualified Probation Officer. It blends academic study with hands-on training in the community, supporting people on licence, managing risk and guiding rehabilitation beyond the prison walls. What I see: As a Senior Probation Officer working in OMiC, I get a rare view into both worlds. And honestly? Every week, hundreds of officers on the landings are already doing informal probation work — supporting resettlement plans, calming parole anxieties, talking about change and future risks.

So why don’t more Prison Officers take the step into probation? I manage 7 incredible Prison Offender Managers. If one wanted to retrain as a Probation Officer, they’d have to take roughly a £12,000 pay cut for two years, and then spend another four slowly climbing back to their current wage. That’s not a transition, that’s a punishment for ambition.

The union tug-of-war: 

Since the unification of the Prison and Probation services, HMPPS has struggled to truly align its policies, recruitment or culture. Part of that comes from the POA and NAPO pulling in different directions — both doing their jobs protecting members’ interests, but often reinforcing the divide instead of bridging it. Rehabilitation needs to be prioritised over politics.

My proposal: unify and empower: Here’s what I believe HMPPS could do:

1. Unify the graduate pathways – merge Unlocked and PQiP into a shared entry route, offering placements across custody and community, without one being seen as “the better” option.

2. Align pay and progression – no more financial penalties for moving between the two arms of the service.

3. Recognise experience – if a Prison Offender Manager has proven themselves over several years, with strong management feedback, let them complete PQiP on their current salary.

Imagine the possibilities: Unified training. Shared pay structure. It’s not radical, it’s logical. The people, the skills and the passion already exist inside HMPPS. We just need to make it easier for them to move, grow and stay. Let’s make “crossing the line” between prison and probation an opportunity, not a career setback.

Senior Probation Officer - Community responds:

Really thoughtful post. It’s pragmatic to look at options, but also to remember that while there are crossovers these can be very different jobs, reflecting the distinct cultures of custody and community even within HMPPS. Probation has always had a rehabilitation and social work ethos, attracting to the training both graduates and those with valuable life or second-career experience, including many from prisons, the military, police, youth justice and the third sector.

If unions secure better pay, that will help attract and retain great staff. But I’d doubt they’d be any merging professional identities, many still see Napo as the distinct professional voice for probation, perhaps increasingly the Probation Institute is too.

I’d also like to see more inclusion of those with Lived Experience in accessing probation training which has long been acknowledged as a thing. [See Prisoners today Professionals tomorrow.] 

And maybe, call me old school, a return to “advise, assist and befriend,” as I wrote here. In concluding I consider what the future could look like too. 

Senior Probation Officer - OMiC responds to Senior Probation Officer - Community:

Completely with you — although I’d also say that, informally, “advise, assist and befriend” has almost become the quiet mantra for many prison officers these days, while the Probation Service has, somewhat ironically, drifted into being seen as the more punitive arm of HMPPS (just think of recall).

I’ll always be a champion for unions (spot the Labour voter). But controversially, I do think NAPO’s influence outweighs its actual size. It feels like a small union that punches well above its weight in terms of narrative and policy sway. I’d be curious to see the numbers, what percentage of the Probation Service are actually NAPO members?

I also don’t agree with NAPO’s stance on dissolving HMPPS. In my view, the Probation Service would be significantly weaker without that structural alignment. The truth is that the average Joe Bloggs doesn’t fully understand what probation does, nor its value to public protection. Without that connection to the prison service, the incentive to prioritise funding, wage increases, or recruitment would likely shrink even further. Dissolving HMPPS might sound empowering in theory, but in practice it risks leaving probation more isolated and under-resourced than ever.

Senior Probation Officer - Community further responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

I see a lot of good rehabilitation and reintegration work happening in probation offices.It’s fair to say that identity has become a key challenge, not just in England and Wales, but across Europe. It’s also something I wrote about recently, exploring how probation can reclaim and shape its identity. Perhaps Napo shares a similar concern, without a clear and credible identity, distinct from punishment or risk-led narratives, probation risks being misunderstood and constrained by external pressures.

I concluded, and I think this is where we probably agree, that “the future of probation lies in evidence-based reform, practitioner development, and adequate resourcing.” It’s a conversation we should all be part of, and well done for putting your ideas out there. [See Shaping Probations Identity]

Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

Managing high risk and very high ROSH in the community takes skill and experience balancing risk, criminogenic needs and building a meaningful rapport take time to learn and implement. There are key skills within this mix that just aren't being taught early enough through traditional qualifications. Qualifications should align to the job role. A very real problem we have is offering criminology qualifications that offer no opportunity to access criminal justice agencies or provide students with a skill set required to make it in criminal justice.There isn't enough happening in our schools to show prison or probabtion jobs as attractive

Well-being Consultant responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

This is really interesting to read , there's also conversations to be had about why staff are leaving. As an ex senior probation officer myself I've heard of so many staff leaving owing to poor mental health and management. Staffing includes retention.

Financial Investigator responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC: 

Why “From Custody to Community” Sounds Great — But Wouldn’t Work (Yet) The idea of merging prison and probation pathways under one unified entry route sounds smart: shared training, smoother transitions, and stronger collaboration. But in practice, it’s not that simple.
Different roles, different skills. Custody work focuses on safety, order, and behaviour management. Probation is about risk assessment, rehabilitation, and community reintegration. Blending them risks diluting both professions. 

Training and accreditation gaps. Unlocked and PQiP have distinct standards and academic structures. Unifying them would require rewriting qualification frameworks and rebuilding university partnerships — a huge reform effort.

Culture and identity. Prison and probation services have very different working cultures and priorities. Without deeper organisational alignment, a joint route could cause confusion rather than cohesion. Pay parity won’t solve retention. Matching salaries helps, but it doesn’t fix core issues like workload, burnout, or lack of support.

Union and structural barriers. POA and NAPO protect different workforces. Blurring boundaries would trigger long negotiations over representation and progression. Food for thought.

Unlocked Graduates Ambassador responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

This is an interesting take. Sadly the unlocked programme is not likely to be recruiting a cohort for a while because they haven’t come to a procurement agreement with the government. As someone who’s just left the prison service (and an unlocked ambassador), I can say that the opportunity for prison officers to do real rehabilitative work is currently in direct conflict with how prisons are run (think regime, regime, regime) and the prioritization of security. I personally really had to carve out opportunities on my own - which often meant putting in many more hours than the core working day. I’m now looking at joining the probation service myself, so would definitely welcome an approach like the one you suggest - I wonder if it is something that has ever been considered in policy.

Andrew Bridges responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC: 

It’s not just the unions who won’t like your idea, Ed. Your point about the disincentives to ‘career progression’ within Probation is not new, but very well made here, and in broad terms I’d support it, based on my views about many PSOs over the years, as well as Prison Officers. There are many interests that would resist such a radical rethink. 

End

Thats it - That’s not radical. It’s just common sense. Agree or disagree, these are the conversations probation needs — not led by academics or think tanks, but by the people doing the work every day, willing to stand up, speak out, and be heard.

*******

1. Unify the graduate pathways – merge Unlocked and PQiP into a shared entry route, offering placements across custody and community, without one being seen as “the better” option.

- No. They’re two different courses for two fundamentally different roles.

2. Align pay and progression – no more financial penalties for moving between the two arms of the service.

- Yes. Probation staff should receive the same pay rises and bonuses already given to those in prisons. Equality works both ways.

3. Recognise experience – if a Prison Offender Manager has proven themselves over several years, with strong management feedback, let them complete PQiP on their current salary.

- No. That would mean prison staff being paid more than probation trainees for the same qualification and role, or even matching the pay of internal probation PSOs on the progression pathway. In fact, with prison pay rises and bonuses, they’d end up earning more. That’s unequal pay, plain and simple.

Imagine the possibilities: Unified training. Shared pay structure.

- Not if it erases the identity and value of the probation service. This is what happens when prison-led management drives the agenda. Next you’ll be arguing locking cell doors compares to probation work!

Final thought:

It’s not radical, it’s ridiculous. And that’s what happens when you use AI to draft a proposal to “unify and empower” a broken service like HMPPS.

*******

Fully agree with you. I think most of our problems have stemmed from being so intertwined with the Prisons (as do most commentators on here I believe) Probation should go back to being seen as an Alternative to custody not an extension of custody as we in all sense are today. Prisons have it relatively easy in the sense they can lock them away, seg them, and chuck them out even if they have no address or referrals to support services. They don't have to worry about SFO's unless they stupidly wrongly release them which with today's technology beggers belief. It's not a comparable job apart from we deal with the same people, but that's like saying a brain surgeon and a chiropodist have a similar role...

********

Shows how disconnected from reality probation managers are once they step through the prisons gate. They have to say all that as they’re line managed by prison governors which makes no sense at all. How Prison Officers are submitting a 26/27 payclaim when probation staff get nothing is beyond me.

A Paper Mouse With No Gnashers

Nothing seems to change with these reports. They get made. There's a bit of tract and then nothing and then another report and so on and so forth. It's a paper mouse with no gnashers. It's no wonder staff are fatigued from filling in the People's Survey, to give us the illusion that our voice is being heard, when most just want more money and this is constantly fudged like the Cadbury's factory. The country is still slavishly listening to the raged majority in the Shires and the investment-starved inner cites who want to bring back executions, frontier justice, the mass deportation of immigrants; the belief that all sex offenders are off small boats; the dim-bulbed misunderstanding of what a minimum tariff for a life sentence is: "they'll be out in 8 years. Not long enough." 

So, we get prisons being front and centre of this thirst for vengeance and no wonder Probation is starved of investment- it's not an appeasement to the baying mob. As far as recruitment goes: this is constantly in flux. It doesn't take into consideration those wanting to leave now or are thinking of leaving and the number of new recruits who may not stay the distance, which is between 24 and 32 months after PO status without NQO and completion of the PQIP has been achieved, because the culture at a given a PDU may not be conducive to a person's circumstances or working practice. Cliques, favouritism, factions, staff using leverage, side hustles that lead to exemptions, meaning more work for others; some factors that come into play in a PDU that are hidden until you get there. Probation often doesn't help itself with the culture it creates and normalises, because it is what it is becomes the status quo

*******
[above] has nailed it - report after report after report after report, but no-one gives a flying fuck what they say; they make no difference to the day-to-day reality... people get paid shitloads more to prepare & publish the reports than those trying to deliver what the reports blather on about. casey has made a fortune out of being a professional "cszar"; chairs of enquiries get paid £hundreds-of-thousands over the period of the hearings they preside over; judges get their salaries PLUS whatever the hearing daily rate is.

What's the fucking point? As someone else has already highlighted, the first NAO report on TR was predicated on govt lies & misinformation... just because a report matches your prejudice doesn't mean its accurate. The situation for probation staff is dire, whether you're new or existing or long-serving. Management is a non-sequitur, in the majority of cases its simply a label for collusive shitweasel (there are always exceptional exceptions).

*******
HMPPS’s ‘Our Future Probation Programme’ is not bold and innovative approach, it’s nonsense and I cringe every time I hear it. If HMPPS acknowledges that the Probation Service is currently unsustainable then why isn’t it adequately paid and resourcing probation staff. The fix isn’t rocket science, but let’s see how quick they farm in Serco, Sodexo, G4S and others to do the “extra work” the prison crisis and so called reforms are generating. It’s been said time and again, even on this blog, until probation is separated from prisons, the civil service and political meddling, there will be no change.

If probation is unable to develop a clear and credible identity, distinct from narratives around punishment, public safety, use of technology, cost-effectiveness, or custody alternatives, and to resist the urge to overpromise on risk management, public protection, and crime control, then it will continue to face the challenge of misrepresentation. Without a clearly defined identity, probation remains vulnerable to external pressures, limiting its autonomy and effectiveness to dust.

Damning NAO Report

Nicely timed for the weekend, but no matter, here we have a damning report from the NAO with yet further evidence that reunification under civil service control has been utterly disastrous for the Probation Service. 

There is zero chance that any of the NAO recommendations can be met under the present arrangements. At what point do wise heads just say, as with TR, we're going in completely the wrong direction and probation must go back to local control and autonomy, when of course it was a gold standard service. NAO press release:-

Government must actively manage plan to boost weak Probation Service performance

• In 2024-25, HMPPS met only 26% of its targets, a drop of 24 percentage points since 2021-22.
• HMPPS has been recruiting more probation staff, but in 2024 found it had underestimated the number of staff required to provide sentence management tasks by around a third (5,400 staff).
• To mitigate the impact on offender outcomes and public protection, HMPPS and MoJ must actively manage the risks associated with its innovative programme to reduce Probation Service workloads.

Risks in the government’s plans to ease workload pressure on the Probation Service must be fully understood and actively managed to ensure it can achieve its aims of rehabilitating offenders and protecting the public, amid worsening performance in the service due to inexperienced staff and gaps in critical roles.1,2

The Probation Service aims to protect the public by managing any risks offenders pose when they leave prison or receive community sentences, and by reducing the chance of them reoffending through supporting rehabilitation in the community.

But a new National Audit Office (NAO) report has found that the service has remained under significant strain since it returned to full public ownership in June 2021 following a major reorganisation. In 2024-25, performance dropped by 24 percentage points compared with 2021-22 levels.3 And some areas of performance are worse than others: in 2024, probation practitioners adequately assessed risk of harm from offenders in just 28% of cases, compared with 60% in 2018-19.4

Staff shortages and skills gaps are major contributing factors to poor performance.5 HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) was slow to introduce major changes to address staffing shortfalls and reduce high workloads, and its efforts have not been sufficient.6,7,8

In 2024, HMPPS found it had significantly underestimated the number of staff required to provide sentence management tasks by approximately 34% (5,400 staff) and was operating with around only half the number of sentence management staff it needed.

HMPPS estimates that it needs to address a capacity gap of around 3,150 staff in 2026-27, even after its recruitment aims. It is therefore relying on further transformation of the Probation Service.

In February 2025, HMPPS established its innovative ‘Our Future Probation Service’ (OFPS) programme to reduce workloads by 25% across the service through improving existing processes and changing the scope of probation supervision. It has adopted a high risk appetite for the programme, with the aim of increasing capacity in response to policy changes that are likely to put further pressures on the service.9

But HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have not fully assessed the potential consequences of OFPS assuming a high level of risk, nor have they set clear thresholds for how much risk the Probation Service can tolerate, which means it may be hard to spot risks that become too high to manage.

The NAO’s report identifies two principal risks to the long-term resilience of the Probation Service: uncertainty over whether HMPPS proposals will free up sufficient capacity to improve performance, and the possible adverse impact of changes on public protection, rehabilitation and wider government objectives such as its ‘safer streets’ mission, if they are not actively managed.

The NAO recommends that MoJ and HMPPS:

• take a robust approach to understanding and managing risks associated with its OFPS programme
• take steps to minimise the impact of change on probation staff
• ensure that sufficient capacity is freed up to improve the quality of probation supervision
• implement robust monitoring and evaluation to assess and react to the impact of changes on the level and depth of probation supervision and support

“A well-functioning Probation Service can ease the financial burden that reoffending imposes on society, which currently costs an estimated £21 billion a year.

“Since the service was brought back under full public control in June 2021, performance has declined, with significant staffing shortfalls and high workloads.

“‘Our Future Probation Service’ is a bold and innovative approach to increase resilience. The government must manage the risks associated with the programme to mitigate the impact on offenders’ chances of successfully rehabilitating in the community.”

Gareth Davies, head of the NAO

--oo00oo--

Conclusions

Research shows that a well-functioning probation service can reduce the significant cost of reoffending to society, estimated by MoJ at £20.9 billion a year across adult offenders, in 2024-25 prices.

However, available data show that, since unification of the Probation Service in June 2021, performance has worsened, with significant staffing shortfalls and high workloads, particularly for the Probation Officer grade.

HMPPS increased its recruitment of probation staff in line with its plans, but in 2024 its internal analysis indicated that it had significantly underestimated the time needed for sentence management tasks. This analysis is undergoing external review but indicates that the service had been operating with around half the staff needed for sentence management.

HMPPS acknowledges that the Probation Service is currently unsustainable, requiring significant corrective action. It has made pragmatic decisions to deal with staffing shortfalls by reducing rehabilitative activity and supervision, but these have not sufficiently reduced PO workloads.

Further, to avoid running out of prison places, MoJ plans to implement legislative changes that will significantly increase demands on the Probation Service.

HMPPS’s ‘Our Future Probation Programme’ is a bold and innovative approach to increase resilience. However, the significant gap between actual and required capacity and slow progress in improving productivity means the challenge it faces is huge.

Furthermore, the pace of change required and nature of the changes HMPPS plans to make pose risks to the probation service’s aims of public protection, rehabilitation, and the government’s wider ‘Safer Streets’ mission, which will need to be actively managed.

HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely must urgently consider how to manage these risks and how to ensure that reducing the scope of Probation Service activity does not negatively impact on offender outcomes or increase pressure on the wider justice system.

Good Job They Don't Run Breweries

Whilst probation remains tied to HMPPS and MoJ control, there's very little hope that resources will be directed towards community sentencing options when it's realised just how serious the prison crisis is. Of course its also well known that the MoJ are not very good at either project management or the contracting out of services. This from the Independent:-

Revealed: The eye-watering cost of letting prisons crumble

The ageing prison estate is in a dire condition after years of neglect, but the cost of outsourcing basic repairs is spiralling out of control, with shower upgrades in one prison set to cost taxpayers £7.8m, Amy-Clare Martin reports 

Taxpayers are footing the bill for “eyewatering” and grossly inflated repair costs at prisons across the country as the government scrambles to keep overcrowded jails running after decades of neglect, The Independent can reveal. Private contracting costs for basic upgrades are “out of control”, the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) has warned, describing the situation as a “public disgrace” that is failing to deliver value for money.

Meanwhile, prison conditions are worse than ever, with a soaring maintenance backlog approaching £2bn, having doubled from 2020 to 2024. Some prisons are so dire that in 2023, a German court refused to extradite a criminal to Britain due to fears over inhumane conditions. A quarter of prisoners in England and Wales are locked in jails which are not fire safe, while hundreds are held in cells without toilets and forced to defecate in buckets and bags if there aren’t enough staff to let them out to use the toilet overnight.

Labour MP Kim Johnson said: “The taxpayer has been paying twice over: first for underinvestment and bad contracts, then for the premium of reactive maintenance and emergency measures.”

It is feared hundreds of millions have been spent on exorbitant private sector contracts dished out by the Ministry of Justice, whose procurement has been slammed as “reactive and expensive” by the public spending watchdog. An investigation by The Independent has uncovered tens of millions worth of spiralling costs for simple repairs and evidence of a sector in chaos, including:

• A project to upgrade 50 showers at HMP Wandsworth, estimated to cost £13m. The MoJ later said the price came out lower than forecast at £7.8m (£6.5m plus VAT), the equivalent of £156,000 per shower
• A new £12m healthcare centre not in use three years after its scheduled opening date due to fire door issues, unfinished cabling and problems with an air conditioning unit
• £196m worth of upgrades at HMP Liverpool, HMP Birmingham and HMP Guys Marsh left in limbo after the building firm collapsed
• Temporary boilers in use for seven years at HMP Lincoln, which the prisons inspector warned cost more than a permanent replacement

It comes as it emerged the MoJ has a two-year backlog of unpublished spending transparency data - worth an estimated £11billion of public money, according to analysts Tussell. The MoJ insists all spending is accounted for in annual accounts.

Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA, said: “If the general public knew the charges for basic things to be done... it’s eyewatering, and at the end of the day, they are the taxpayers paying for it. It is not value for money, and it’s an absolute disgrace that taxpayers are footing these bills, which are out of control. No one seems to be very transparent about what’s going on.”

The union, which represents 32,000 prison staff, insists the Conservative government’s decision to privatise all prison maintenance in 2015 was an “utter disaster” as prisons descended into further disrepair. Basic prison maintenance contracts were awarded to two firms, although one collapsed three years later, while larger upgrade and infrastructure projects are put out to tender. More than 4,100 cells have been lost to dilapidation since 2010, despite an overcrowding crisis that means every cell is needed.

Offset against the 6,500 new prison places completed by 2024 – way below the government’s target of 20,000 – this means the net number of available cells has only increased by 1,005 places. The cost per place to protect a cell from being lost to disrepair is between £8,600 and £12,700, the prison service estimates, compared to around £220,000 to build a cell at a new prison. HMP Millsike, a 1,500-cell category C prison in East Yorkshire which opened in March, cost an estimated £400m.

The POA has been lobbying Labour to make good on its manifesto commitment to usher in the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation and bring works back in-house, but fears the government is set to continue the private sector model.

“When you report a problem, it can be anything from six weeks to two months until the very basic stuff is fixed,” Mr Gillan said. “When I used to work on the landing at Chelmsford, you used to phone up the works department, take round a little slip and it would be done the same day.”

Squalid cells

When a local pressure group began to investigate conditions inside overcrowded HMP Wandsworth, which was subject to an urgent notification last year after inspectors found prisoners were spending 22 hours a day in squalid cells, they were met with resistance when they raised questions over the sky-high cost of upgrades. They also questioned why a newly constructed £12m healthcare centre at the south London Victorian prison was not in use three years after its scheduled opening date of October 2021.

The Independent Monitoring Board had also demanded answers over its opening date in its last two annual reports and criticised the project as a “major failure of procurement” because it has no residential beds, despite “totally inadequate” provision at the prison.

In response to a freedom of information request, the prison service revealed the delays were caused by fire door issues, cabling and telecommunications issues, and problems with the air conditioning unit in the pharmacy. It said the centre, which cost £12.48m (£10.4m plus VAT), was finally in use in March this year.

£156,000 for one shower

It also emerged that a proposed £13m project to upgrade a shower block will replace just 50 showers and take almost five years. This later came out lower than forecast at £7.8m (£6.5m plus VAT), the MoJ said, which is the equivalent of £156,000 per shower.

When the Wandsworth Prison Improvement Campaign pressed for more information, it was told that the prison services “do not have the capacity to respond to your latest set of questions”. The letter, dated April 2025, from Ian Blakeman, a director at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) London, concluded: “We do not consider that there is benefit to HMP Wandsworth or the prisoners detained there in continuing this correspondence.”

Tom Wheatley, the chair of the Prison Governors’ Association, said privatisation has been “incredibly frustrating” for governors who are no longer able to commission repairs. “When I was first a prison governor, the maintenance staff were employees in my direct management,” he said. “I felt in control of that stuff.”

Abandoned plans

Now, governors are at the mercy of their MoJ landlords, while private contractors charge a premium for the inconvenience of working in a prison environment. Some have got so fed up that they have started their own initiatives, using prisoners to carry out repairs.

When he was running HMP Wakefield from 2018 to 2024, Mr Wheatley was left staggered after learning that replacing a single shower in a supervision unit would cost more than £40,000.

He explained: “Contractors in that environment need to be security cleared to a really high standard. We then place lots of restrictions around when they can come in and out, and how long it takes for them to come in and out. They have to be supervised all the time, and then there’s periods of the day where we don’t let them work. The contractor then thinks, in order to do this bit of work at the prison, instead of this being a job that’s going to take two blokes two days, it’s now going to take two blokes six days. And during those six days, you are going to have to turn down other work. So that’s why it’s so expensive.”

It also has major implications when private firms go bust. The government was forced to step in and launch a corporate-style Government Facilities Services Limited (GFSL) when the firm tasked with maintaining prisons across southern England, Carillion, failed in 2018.

A £56m scheme to upgrade HMP Liverpool has been left an abandoned building site after contractors ISG collapsed last year. The building firm was one of the government’s biggest contractors for upgrades and prison expansion, leaving many projects in limbo.

Work has only recently resumed with replacement builders at HMP Birmingham, where ISG was refurbishing 300 cells at a cost of £61m, The Independent understands. The full cost to the government of the firm’s collapse is not yet known. It will also delay efforts to bring 23,000 occupied cells that do not meet fire safety standards up to code by the end of 2027, leaving them at risk of enforcement action by the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate.

Rats and cockroaches

Prisons inspector Charlie Taylor said he regularly sees prisons with costly temporary fixes that are an “enormous” waste of money, while many are held in squalid conditions inside rat- and cockroach-infested jails. “You often see places with temporary buildings, temporary kitchens,” he told The Independent.

“Very often the prison service is spending more money on hiring kit like generator sets or fridges and things like that than it would by just going out and buying the damn things. That’s just astonishing because it’s an enormous waste of money.”

In a recent inspection of HMP Lincoln, he called for urgent investment to replace the temporary heating system, which was “not fit for purpose”. He said “long delays” with getting a new boiler meant the prison had relied for seven years on a temporary solution that had cost far more than getting a replacement.

However, in its response, the government said the boiler would not be upgraded until pipe replacement works to tackle the risk from Legionella bacteria had been completed, which could take until 2028. In 2017, an inmate died after contracting legionnaires’ disease at the prison.

‘Something has gone badly wrong’

Ms Johnson, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, is backing the POA’s calls to bring back maintenance in-house. She fears privatisation and neglect have left taxpayers footing the bill for hundreds of millions in avoidable costs.

“It is abundantly clear that the system is not delivering value for money,” she told The Independent. “When basic works like Wandsworth’s £13m shower refurbishment are scheduled to take five years, something has gone badly wrong with scoping, procurement and delivery. It is the exact kind of opaque, delay-ridden contracting that breeds mistrust within the system.”

A report from the National Audit Office (NAO) concluded in January that prison funding had failed to keep pace with policy, which has seen more people jailed for longer, leading to “reactive solutions which represent poor value for money”.

This includes a focus on building new places urgently at increased costs and contingency measures, including hiring police cells at nearly five times the average daily cost of a prison place. HMPPS spent £70m on the emergency measure, known as Operation Safeguard, between February 2023 and September 2024, but cells were only occupied roughly 4 per cent of the time, the report said.

An MoJ spokesperson said: 

“This government inherited a prison system in crisis – with crumbling infrastructure, dangerous prisons and hard-working staff under immense pressure. That is why we are focusing efforts on building 14,000 new prison places – with 2,500 already complete – and have announced a £500m investment into long-term prison and probation maintenance so that we always have the cells we need. A 2023 assessment identified that outsourcing prison maintenance contracts to expert private companies would deliver the best value for the taxpayer.”