Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending

We recognise the Government’s efforts to increase transparency around prison capacity, and its action towards ending the capacity crisis. However, the evidence we received demonstrates that the current level of overcrowding, in combination with a high number of staff vacancies, is having a profound impact on the ability of prisons to deliver rehabilitation. These failures risk undermining the very purpose of imprisonment, to reduce reoffending. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

In the next annual statement on prison capacity, the Government should set out not only how it intends to manage the demand and supply of prison places, but also the steps it will take to ensure that rehabilitation is not compromised. This should include measures to improve access to purposeful activity, maintain family relationships, and ensure prisoners are placed in establishments that support their progression and resettlement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

We heard concerns that recruitment and training for prison staff falls significantly short when compared to other public sector services. It is not right that promotions often come without proper training for their new role. This undermines both staff confidence and the quality of prison operations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)

Staff should never be promoted, even temporarily, without the proper training required to fulfil the duties of the role. As part of the Government’s work through ‘the Enable Programme’ it must ensure that, from prison officer to Governor, every member of prison staff receives training on recruitment, on promotion, and at a minimum on an annual basis, and more regularly as staff are promoted throughout their careers. This should be rolled out within 12 months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 34)

HMPPS must be transparent on its workforce data. Data must be captured and published on the vacancy rate for each prison staff role, how many of those roles have staff that are eligible to retire in the next five years, 81 and how many staff are on skilled worker visas. Going forward, this data should be published as part of the quarterly workforce statistics. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35)

The Government must produce a comprehensive, public workforce plan for the prison system (including the women’s and children’s estate) for the next fifteen years, modelled on the process used for the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, with commencement of that planning process within three months. This plan should include targets to reduce the number of vacancies at each grade. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36)

Governors must have the ultimate decision on the recruitment of staff who work in their prison. HMPPS must amend its recruitment process to ensure that all frontline staff, including prison officers, undergo a mandatory face-to-face interview process led by Governors or a member of the senior leadership team. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)

We are shocked by the dire living conditions that many prisoners are living in, and it is deeply concerning to hear that prisons may be in violation of human rights legislation. We accept that the Government recognises this and that it has invested a sizeable amount of funding in repairs and improvements, but it remains unclear how this funding will be used to address the scale of the maintenance backlog. Furthermore, without access to safe, decent, and functional spaces, including those required for rehabilitative activities, prisoners cannot be expected to engage meaningfully in their rehabilitation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)

The Government must clearly set out how it intends to address the £1.8bn maintenance backlog using the funding set out by its Prison Capacity Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy. In response to this report, we expect the Government to update the Committee on the work completed to date and provide a clear breakdown of how future funding will be used. This should include how much of the allocated funding through the Infrastructure Strategy is ring-fenced for prisons maintenance, what it plans to use this funding for, and how the Government intends to address the remaining shortfall in the maintenance backlog. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)

In the current climate of overcrowding, staffing pressures, and a crumbling prison estate, public sector prison Governors work under immense pressure to run their prisons as best as they can. It is clear that they are further constrained by the low level of autonomy they are awarded. 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 56) 82

The Government should update the Committee on the findings of its review into Governor autonomy, including whether it will implement the Lords Home Affairs and Justice Committee’s recommendations on staffing, budgeting, and regime design. It should also set out a clear plan for how it plans to reduce Governor turnover and support Governors to lead their establishments with greater consistency and authority. As part of this plan, the Government should consider awarding the same level of autonomy to public sector Governors, as is afforded to private sector Governors. If it is decided that they should not, the Government must provide their rationale for this decision. (Recommendation, Paragraph 57)

The evidence we received shows that the current contracting and procurement system within HMPPS is inefficient. 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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

As the Prisons Minister said, contracts within HMPPS are complex and hard to understand. We are not convinced that HMPPS has a handle on the way it procures its services. Prison Governors are not contract managers and should not be seen or treated as such. (Conclusion, Paragraph 65)

In response to this report, the Government should 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. It should also set out how it will reduce the burden of contract management on Governors and ensure that voluntary and specialist providers are not disadvantaged in the commissioning process. (Recommendation, Paragraph 66)

A substantial element of the role of a Prison Governor is contract management. The Government should provide comprehensive training on procurement and contract management to all public sector prison governors within 12 months. This should form an integral part of a new centralised unit within Government, to provide prompt legal and commercial advice on contract management readily available to all Prison Governors, within twelve months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 67) The prison regime

It is unacceptable that the statutory minimum for time out of cell is not being met, which means that prisoners either do not have access to basic needs, such as a shower or time in fresh air, or must choose between those or engaging in rehabilitative activities. Whilst we support the Government’s 83 ambition to go beyond the minimum, the immediate priority must be ensuring that all prisons consistently meet their legal obligations. Without this, rehabilitation is severely compromised. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

HMPPS should formalise, standardise, and publish time out of cell data for every prison in England and Wales. It must closely monitor prisons that are failing to meet the statutory minimum and provide urgent support to enable compliance. Accurate and transparent reporting is essential to drive improvement and ensure accountability. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78)

We agree wholeheartedly with Lord Timpson that there is too much inconsistency across the prison estate. Purposeful activity is integral to supporting rehabilitation. It is therefore disappointing that it continues to be deprioritised by HMPPS amidst other pressures. We are sympathetic to the current constraints the Government is facing regarding overcrowding, staffing, and the physical estate. However, the regime offer is simply not sufficient for supporting efforts towards rehabilitation. We recognise that these problems cannot be resolved overnight, but more needs to be done in the meantime to provide a consistent regime to support the needs of all prisoners. (Conclusion, Paragraph 88)

The Sentencing Bill 2024–25 aims to move towards an ‘earned progression scheme’, where eligible prisoners could be released earlier. However, as the Bill is currently drafted, it is unclear as to how this scheme will work in practice, especially as to whether as the Independent Sentencing Review set out, it is contingent on whether they have engaged constructively with the regime. We are concerned by the Government’s ambition to effectively implement any such scheme, given the evidence we have heard regarding failures to provide purposeful activity and time out of cell. (Conclusion, Paragraph 89)

The Government should set out how it plans to implement the earned progression scheme and publish full details of this within six months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 90)

Release on temporary licence (ROTL) is a proven and effective tool for rehabilitation, helping prisoners maintain family ties, gain employment, and reintegrate into the community. Despite its strong track record, with a 99.8 per cent compliance rate, it remains inconsistently applied and underutilised. (Conclusion, Paragraph 95)

We welcome the Minister’s commitment to expanding the use of Release on temporary licence (ROTL). HMPPS should review and update its operational framework to ensure ROTL is used more consistently and proactively across the estate. The Ministry of Justice should also work to address operational barriers and improve public understanding of ROTL’s role in rehabilitation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 96) 84

Many remand prisoners are convicted but released straight from court without any rehabilitative support. This means they are more likely to reoffend. We welcome impending change as part of the Sentencing Bill; however, we are concerned this will not go far enough to slow the growth of the remand population. (Conclusion, Paragraph 101)

Custodial remand must only be used for those that present the greatest level of risk to the public. The Ministry of Justice must respond to this report with what further action it will be taking to reduce the use of adult custodial remand. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)

It is right that the remand population should not be mandated to participate in the regime, as they have not been found guilty. However, due to the length of time remand prisoners are in custody for due to the court backlogs, it is not right that they are spending their time languishing with limited options available to them. (Conclusion, Paragraph 103)

The Ministry of Justice must consider the benefits of giving remand prisoners access to all parts of the regime, should they choose to participate. In the event that this is not currently viable due to the prioritisation of courses for convicted prisoners in order to demonstrate suitability for release, the Government must produce a plan for how all prisoners can be offered access to all aspects of the regime within 3 years. (Recommendation, Paragraph 104)

The Government must outline how rehabilitation in the prisons, including for both convicted and remand prisoners, is going to contribute to the Government’s target of reducing of violence against women and girls by 50 per cent, with a formal report within six months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 105)

We were shocked and appalled to hear that prisons are used as a place of safety. We acknowledge and welcome that the Government aims to end this practice in the Mental Health Bill. We request details of how this will work in practice and when this will be implemented. (Conclusion, Paragraph 110)

The Youth Custody Service, and in particular Young Offender Institutions, is clearly not working for children. Children should not be spending up to 23 hours a day in cell due to the failure of HMPPS to manage behaviour effectively. It is disappointing that the only action the Government has taken has been the introduction of PAVA spray, which several stakeholders disagreed with. (Conclusion, Paragraph 119)

The Government must respond to this report with an action plan as to how it plans to manage current conditions across the youth estate. For Young Offender Institutions, this should include what impact the introduction of 85 PAVA has had in managing behaviour, and what other action it plans to take to increase the levels of time out of cell and access to purposeful activity and ROTL. (Recommendation, Paragraph 120)

As well as making every effort to meet the statutory minimum of 15 hours for education, HMPPS must set a statutory minimum for time out of cell in Young Offender Institutions. As with adult prisons, this minimum must be monitored centrally using formalised and standardised data, which should also be published for accountability purposes, and HMPPS must provide urgent support to enable compliance. The Government must make it clear that any such target for time out of cell is a minimum, and not a maximum. (Recommendation, Paragraph 121) Prison Education

We are alarmed by reports of significant real-term cuts to prison education budgets, with some prisons facing reductions of up to 50 per cent. As this report makes clear, prison education is already underfunded when compared to provision in the community, and such cuts risk undermining efforts to reduce reoffending. (Conclusion, Paragraph 131)

We expect the Government to urgently clarify the scale and rationale for any planned cuts to prison education budgets. It must set out how it plans to ensure that all prisons retain the funding necessary to deliver core education provision. The Ministry of Justice must also publish an assessment of the likely impact of these cuts on prisoner outcomes and reoffending rates, as well as an equality impact assessment for this cut. (Recommendation, Paragraph 132)

It is unacceptable that 50 per cent of prisoners are not involved in prison education, training or work, despite the high level of need across the adult estate. Even for those who do access education, the quality remains poor, with 75 per cent of prisons inspected by Ofsted in 2024/25 rated ‘inadequate’ or ‘showing no improvement’. (Conclusion, Paragraph 145)

The Government must publish a clear plan, with an associated funding allocation, 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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 146)

It is unclear how the Government plans to support those with neurodivergent needs in the criminal justice system without having consistent and reliable data on how many neurodivergent prisoners there are. Furthermore, it is disappointing that those with neurodivergent needs, who require targeted 86 educational support, are being let down by the system and are unable to access the right support at the right time to assist with their rehabilitation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 153)

The Government must publish an update to the Neurodiversity Action Plan without further delay. It should include how they plan to systematically identify how many prisoners have neurodivergent needs, as well as how it aims to support them. (Recommendation, Paragraph 154)

Evidence shows that prisoners who participate in higher education are 20 per cent less likely to reoffend and commit 30 per cent fewer reoffences in the year following release. Reforming the six-year funding rule would support long-term prisoners to develop skills, contribute positively to prison life, and reduce their risk of reoffending on release. The Government’s rationale not to reform this rule—based on loan repayment—fails to account for these wider social and economic benefits, even when loans are not repaid. (Conclusion, Paragraph 170)

Access to higher education should be based on rehabilitative potential, not sentence length. We repeat the recommendation of the previous Education Select Committee and encourage the Government to remove the six-year funding requirement to enable all prisoners to access higher education. (Recommendation, Paragraph 171)

Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms that all children have the right to education, including those in detention. Yet Young Offender Institutions are routinely failing to meet the statutory minimum of 15 hours of education per week—a failure that appears to be tolerated by the Government. Children should never be deprived of education as a means of managing behaviour, particularly when education is so critical to reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 176)

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. As part of an action plan for youth custody, as recommended in paragraph 120, education must be placed at the forefront. The Ministry of Justice must 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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 177)

Prison libraries play a vital role in supporting rehabilitation by providing an alternative educational space for prisoners that fosters literacy and reading. However, access to these services is increasingly constrained by issues across the estate, and an unsustainable commissioning model. 87 Without recognition and action from the Government, prisons risk losing this essential service, undermining efforts to support desistance and rehabilitation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 183) Health and wellbeing services in prisons

Given the acute needs of those in prison, particularly regarding mental health, it is imperative that prisoners have access to good health and wellbeing services to assist them in properly engaging with rehabilitative programmes. However, despite the principle of equivalence, prisoners are not receiving healthcare on a par with the wider population. (Conclusion, Paragraph 202)

The Government must set out how it will ensure that the principle of equivalence in prison healthcare is upheld in practice. This should include a plan to address the operational barriers to healthcare delivery—such as staffing shortages, late receptions, escort constraints and lack of electronic records—and demonstrate how health and wellbeing services will be integrated into its wider rehabilitation strategy and the NHS ten-year plan. (Recommendation, Paragraph 203)

NHS England, or its successor, should publish regular, transparent data on healthcare access and outcomes across the prison estate. This data should be used to monitor progress against the principle of equivalence and to hold both NHS England or its successor and HMPPS accountable for delivering effective, joined-up care. (Recommendation, Paragraph 204)

Women in prison often have acute and complex health needs, yet the system is failing to meet even their most basic requirements. We acknowledge the Government’s ambition to reduce the population in the female prison estate, and that change is expected following the work of the Women’s Justice Board. But, as the Minister himself admits, there are many women in prison right now that are extremely ill and have complex needs. (Conclusion, Paragraph 211)

The Government should respond to this report setting out what action it is taking to address the complex health and wellbeing needs of the women it currently has in its custody. (Recommendation, Paragraph 212) 88