We use small files called ‘cookies’ on hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?
Choose which cookies we use
Marketing cookies
Google analytics
We use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so we can improve it based on user needs. We do not allow Google Analytics to use or share the data about how you use this site.
See our Google analytics cookies
Google analytics
Name
Purpose
Expires
_ga
These help us count how many people visit on https://hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ by tracking if you’ve visited before
2 years
_gid
These help us count how many people visit on https://hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ by tracking if you’ve visited before
24 hours
_gat
These help us to manage how we collect analytics when we have lots of visitors on the site at one time
10 minutes
Google Analytics 4
We use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so we can improve it based on user needs. We do not allow Google Analytics to use or share the data about how you use this site.
See our Google Analytics 4 cookies
Google Analytics 4
Name
Purpose
Expires
_ga
Used to distinguish users.
2 years
_ga_
Used to persist session state.
2 years
Third-party cookies
Video Streaming
We have no control over cookies set by third parties. You can turn them off, but not through us.
See our Video Streaming cookies
Video Streaming
Name
Purpose
Expires
YouTube
YouTube videos play in privacy-enhanced mode. This mode may set third-party cookies on your computer when you click on the YouTube video player. These cookies will not be personally identifiable.
These cookies will always need to be on because they make our site work.
See our All users cookies
All users
Name
Purpose
Expires
wordpress_test_cookie
This is used to test whether the browser accepts cookies
When you close your browser
PHPSESSID
This is used to link your device to the information sent to the server from your browser. It is typically used to avoid you having to retype information when moving from one page to another.
When you close your browser
ccfw-banner-hidden
Lets us know you have chosen which cookies are used so we can stop the cookie banner appearing when you return to the site.
1 year
ccfw-gtm-allowed
Lets us know you have accepted certain cookies so we can stop them loading when you return to the site.
1 year
ccfw-time
This is used to store the cookie expiry dates so we know when to ask you again for consent.
1 year
info_banner_dismissed
This remembers if an information banner has been dismissed and prevents it from being displayed again.
When you close your browser
Logged in users
These cookies will always need to be on because they make our site work.
See our Logged in users cookies
Logged in users
Name
Purpose
Expires
wordpress_[hash]
This authenticates you when you log in to the admin area
When you close your browser
wordpress_logged_in
This shows the site that you’re logged in and who you are so you can access the functions you need
When you close your browser
wordpress_sec
If you are logged in as a site admin, this stores your authentication details.
When you close your browser
wp-settings-{time}-[UID]
The number on the end [UID] is your individual user ID from the users database.
Overall, staff were compassionate, patient and worked hard to support detainee welfare. However, detainees regularly arrived at court late due to limited cell capacity and long journeys, which delayed hearing start times. Searches of detainees were rarely based on individual risk assessment, meaning many were searched repeatedly and unnecessarily. Interpretation services were not used consistently to support detainees.
Points to note: Detainees discharged from prison at court did not have important personal possessions, such as door keys, and could not easily retrieve them. Despite the inspection being announced, cell environments were poor and there was a lack of facilities for detainees with impaired mobility or disabilities.
STHFs, designed and equipped to hold people for just a few hours, held over a quarter of detainees for more than 12 hours and nearly 600 people, including six children, for more than 24 hours over the previous six months. Detainees were not allowed access to their prescribed medication and telephone contact was limited. Not all Border Force staff who had contact with children had enhanced DBS checks and there were startling inconsistences in safeguarding data provided by Border Force. For the most part, Care and Custody staff were supportive to detainees.
Points to note: The Home Office urgently needs to address the situation at Luton. The airport was unable to cope with the demands placed on it and we were particularly concerned to find that children were placed in crowded holding rooms with unrelated adults.
Whatton was generally continuing to operate effectively as a national resource for men convicted of sexual offences. The new governor had taken responsibility for improving the experiences of black prisoners, a concern raised in our previous two inspections. Behaviour management processes were overly punitive, with cellular confinement used far more than at similar establishments, and good behaviour needed to be better incentivised. Self-harm was also higher than at comparator prisons and had risen over the past two years. Many prisoners’ literacy and numeracy levels were poor and the rollout of a prison-wide reading strategy was slow. A lack of accredited programmes inhibited sentence progression, with some waiting years to fulfil that aspect of their sentence plan.
Points to note: Living conditions on B wing were poor. Cells were very cramped and the toilet was situated next to the bed without any partition. Black mould grew on poorly ventilated cell walls and prisoners had been forced to line walls with cardboard to keep warm.
I am delighted that my role as Chief Inspector of Prisons has been extended for another three years, allowing me to continue to lead my outstanding team to scrutinise independently the conditions for and treatment of detainees.
Our key priorities for 2024–25 are detailed in this business plan and will help the Inspectorate to continue to drive improvements in outcomes for detainees.
Commenting on the report HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, said:
Prisons in England and Wales are almost full, with men and women serving increasingly long sentences often in overcrowded and squalid conditions. Reoffending rates remain high, and levels of assaults and self-harm are rising. Drugs too are an increasing problem in many jails, despite the use of technology designed to prevent their incursion.
Against this backdrop, it is more important than ever that prison leaders find ways to develop cultures that support prisoners to behave well. If we want to see less reoffending and fewer victims of crime, prisons must deliver on their purpose to protect the public by working with prisonersto help them prepare for their return to society. But we know how difficult it is for staff to do their job when they are spending too much of their time managing disruptive behaviour. We often report on prisons where behaviour is unacceptable, rules are not clear or enforced, staff lack confidence and do not feel supported by leaders, sanctions are not followed up and there is no effective system in place to motivate prisoners to behave.
Yet we know that some prisons have bucked this trend, creating cultures that encourage men and women to engage constructively with staff and make better use of their time in custody.
In this thematic report, we identify the features of these prisons in the expectation that others will learn from the example, innovation and insight that they offer. We visited eight jails during our research, as well as holding discussion groups with ex-prisoners, governors and academics.
We hope that our report inspires prison leaders to look for what is achievable within their own establishment. But there is no magic wand that can remove the pressure of rising populations, failing infrastructure and a dearth of experienced staff, and we have been calling for some time now for a serious conversation about who we send to prison, for how long and what we want to happen during their time in custody to reduce future victims of crime.
Peterborough’s population was transient and demand for resettlement help was high. The prison had released around 1,200 men in the last 12 months and in the same period had received around 700 men who had been recalled to prison for breaking the rules of their community supervision period. Around a third of those released were high risk prisoners. There was not enough housing support, with about 30% of all releases going out street homeless. Despite this high level of need, the housing adviser had not entered the prison for over a year and there had been no substantive head of reducing reoffending for nearly two years.
The early release scheme (End of Custody Supervised Licence) had added further pressure, and a number of men released under the scheme, for whom accommodation had not been found, had been recalled to prison even before their original release date had passed.
The prison was also struggling with staffing, with around a third of officers typically being unavailable for duty. Many staff said that they felt unsupported, and morale was low. Senior staff had also been deployed to support other Sodexo prisons over the last 18 months, which had contributed to the overall deterioration of the prison which inspectors had previously considered one of the better reception and resettlement prisons.
This was a worrying inspection. It is particularly disappointing that Peterborough, which has historically been one of the better resettlement prisons in the country, has suffered for its more experienced staff being taken to shore up other struggling jails run by Sodexo. But its deterioration also shows the strain that is on all of our prisons at the moment, with common themes such as drugs, staffing challenges, overcrowding and a revolving door for those caught in a cycle of reoffending. Until prisons focus on breaking that cycle by providing meaningful education, employment and other rehabilitation, our communities will continue to suffer, because where there is reoffending, there are more victims.
Inspectors found operational practices to be generally well organised, but too many Albanian detainees waited in detention for several weeks despite wanting to return voluntarily. However, efforts had been made to reduce total journey times. Leaders had acted on, and continued to act on, the staff culture and interactions with detainees were mostly respectful and positive.
Points to note
Information about vulnerability and risk was not clearly communicated to escort staff or paramedics and the opening of detainees’ medical notes without their consent breached medical confidentiality. The use of interpreters needed better oversight.
Opening in early 2022, this was Five Wells’ first inspection. After a period of unsettled leadership, the recently appointed director brought experience and stability.
While incidents of violence were falling and staff felt safer, staff inexperience and lack of confidence meant low-level poor behaviour went unchallenged and too few key work sessions were taking place. The regime remained limited and the quality of education, skills and work was not good enough. The prison also continued to face challenges with the use of illicit drugs.
Points to note
The living conditions were excellent and access to facilities was reasonable. The use of force and segregation was low, but rates of self-harm were extremely high, with not enough being done to reduce this.
Leaders at Wymott failed to tackle the very high staff sickness rates, which meant too few officers were available for operational duties on the wing. This led to an incredibly restricted part-time regime for unemployed prisoners on the main site, some of whom spent 21 hours a day locked up, and the weekend regime was poor for all. Activities across the prison and prisoners’ key health care appointments were often curtailed or cancelled. Specialised officers, such as those with additional psychological training or prison offender managers, were frequently redeployed to do operational tasks.
Staff shortages meant the wait for psychological intervention was extensive, with therapy being 39 weeks and over a year for counselling. This may have contributed to the findings in the inspectorate’s survey in which 20% of prisoners with mental health difficulties said they has developed a problem with drugs since arriving at Wymott. Whilst there had been over 10,000 intelligence reports submitted relating to drugs, a lack of operational officers meant staff completed less than a third of searches, many delayed, and only a third of suspicion drugs tests.
The influx of drugs at Wymott remained a serious problem. It was a cause of debt that resulted in prisoners self-isolating and self-harming because of their fears of violence. There were limited resources available to keep drugs out of the prison with no scanners, systematic checks on staff or adequate technology to reduce the frequent arrival of contraband-laden drones over the large perimeter fence.
