Hollesley Bay

The Board expresses profound disappointment at this decision and urges that it is revisited as soon as possible.

I have noted the Board’s disappointment around resentencing IPP prisoners. It may be helpful to explain that a resentencing exercise would likely result in most of those still serving an IPP sentence in custody being released without any licence supervision, despite the Parole Board having previously considered that these individuals should remain in custody for the protection of the public. I hope that you will understand that we cannot take any steps that would put the public at risk.

If such schemes are to be introduced, the Board urges that account should always be taken of the time required to work with individuals in a meaningful way in preparation for their release.

TPRS eligibility has recently been expanded from twelve weeks from release to twelve months from release with a stricter eligibility criteria that requires no adjudications, and an intelligence check. This should allow those who move via the scheme to spend longer in open conditions so that they can fully participate in the regime on offer.

With sequencing now firmly embedded in Hollesley Bay, will this clear pathway for progression be recognised as an example of good practice?

It was encouraging to receive your comments about how considerable importance is given to earned progression whereby prisoners are expected to demonstrate commitment and strict involvement in working towards their planned release. All staff at HMP/YOI Hollesley Bay should be proud of their successful implementation of the sequencing regime. I was also pleased to read about the strong emphasis on functional skills and how the prison continues to provide a good range of vocational training courses which I take great interest in.
HMPPS’ specialist Improvement Support Group will work with all relevant internal stakeholders to understand more about sequencing at the prison, it’s impacts, and how transferable this initiative is to other prisons. This will determine how this approach is shared.

Is there less priority given to the level of investment in the open estate? It faces the same pressing need for investment in capital projects and maintenance.

The open estate is given the same priority as others regarding funding allocations. Allocations are not determined by the categorisation of a prison. Some of the factors involved are a prison’s capacity, it’s historical spending patterns, and projected future expenditure. Over the last five years HMP/YOI Hollesley Bay has received close to £20 million pounds investment in capital projects such as fire safety improvements, rapid cell deployment, shower unit works, and kitchen gas works. Fire alarms have been fitted and tested and have been compliant since May 2024. Such projects are costly, lengthy and require taking many places offline, and so need to be considered carefully against similar needs in the estate. Other capital projects and maintenance planned or in the pipeline for 2024/2025 onwards include generators, storage tanks, asbestos removal, calorifier remedial work, and refurbishment of the kitchen. The maintenance team are also actively addressing the rust on the modular units. Given the critical nature of fire alarm systems, any faults are addressed within two hours. The temporary kitchen will remain in place until the current project is completed. All requests from the establishment will be considered, noting that demands for maintenance are much greater than the available funding. Therefore, once a bid for a project is received, HMPPS has to prioritise works very carefully to make best use of that funding, focusing on risk to life and risk to capacity and decency.

The Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework, established in October 2022, is not working effectively. The losses that occur when prisoners move between establishments require particular scrutiny.

HMPPS notes the Board’s concerns about prisoners’ property following a transfer between establishments. The introduction of the digitally recorded Prisoner Escort Record (dPER) included a property section that accurately records the number and type of sealed property ‘owned’ by and transferred with the prisoner and an accurate record of property handover between different stakeholders. This is now embedded as business as usual. The digital process has assisted with investigations for property that is lost in transit with the transport suppliers, and complaints are reviewed monthly during formal meetings with transport suppliers. For property delay, in-line with the HMPPS Prisoner Property Framework, if the limit of items allowed in possession has been reached, and if there is no space on the Escort Vehicle to transport items safely and securely, then responsibility for transfer of any remaining items remains with the sending prison. The emphasis must remain on prisoners complying with volumetric control limits, since any property within these limits will be transferred with them. This includes items which are exempt from volumetric control, such as legal papers. It is not possible to transfer all excess property with a prisoner which they might have accrued above these limits. There has been a requirement since the introduction of the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework for prisons to transfer any excess items within four weeks. Previously, there was no time limit in place. HMPPS is aware of the problems around property and continues to look at what further can be done.

The need for hourly observations over prisoners arriving too late to be seen by the healthcare department highlights an important need. Those responsible for transport should be aware of those prisons without 24-hour healthcare provision.

Prisoners should only arrive at prisons within the contracted reception opening hours. These opening hours are agreed between the prison and the contractor. Reception opening times should be designated with the understanding that contractors may arrive just before it is due to close and that, when this does occur, there must still be sufficient time to deliver a safe and decent induction process. Prisons can request changes to their reception opening hours. Any request should be made in consideration that HMPPS has a daily obligation to ensure there are sufficient spaces available in the closed estate to enable them to serve the courts each evening. Prisoner Escorting and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers are contractually required to return prisoners by the relevant establishments’ Latest Reception Time. Specific contract performance measures are in place to monitor the return journey of prisoners dealt with by the courts, such as transporting those men within three hours of their court appearance. The dispersed nature of the prison estate requires the contractor to effectively manage their fleet. However, there may be occasions when late court sittings, together with long distances and traffic conditions or adverse weather, results in a detrimental impact on arrival times. PECS suppliers are required to ensure that receiving prisons are informed of delays and agreement is sought in advance for the safe receipt of any late arrivals. PECS continue to monitor all aspects of the contractors' performance and where it fails to meet the agreed levels it is raised with the contractor for improvement. As HMP/YOI Hollesley Bay does not have 24-hour healthcare provision, staff elect to monitor the wellbeing of new receptions hourly if they arrive after healthcare staff are off duty. Whilst this is not a policy requirement, it is done as a duty of care for prisoners arriving out of hours.

The Board is disappointed that the Governor’s request for a dedicated search dog for Hollesley Bay was not approved. It hopes the decision will be reconsidered.

Regrettably there are no additional resources for a dedicated search dog for HMP/YOI Hollesley Bay. However, regional dog handlers can be deployed to the prison as required and on request.

Will the key worker scheme be extended to the open estate? The Board considers that prisoners approaching a vital stage of their sentence, namely release, would benefit from the support of this structured weekly discussion with a named officer.

Given the focus on resettlement and reintegration into the community, key work is not resourced centrally for the male open estate. Governors in the open estate can continue to deliver a personal officer scheme and other support such as peer led schemes for prisoners where these are already in place or where they wish to introduce one. There is a separate independent research and evaluation programme which supports Offender Management in Custody (OMiC). A series of research projects, including one that has a focus on the male open estate, will test the value of component parts/practices of OMiC and collectively further HMPPS’ understanding in several priority areas. The research findings will help to build the evidence base so that data, research evidence, insights and learning are continually utilised in the ongoing development and delivery of OMiC.

The Board recognises the work done to reduce shared accommodation across Hollesley Bay. It will, however, continue to press for single rooms across the establishment and hopes the Governor will adopt this as an aim.

Locally, now no 4-bed rooms. Multi-occupancy rate is now approximately 15%. The IMB continues to press for single rooms.

A review of the arrangements for dispensing medication is requested. The current regime is slow and cumbersome, which causes frustration for prisoners and friction with healthcare staff.

The Board suggests that there is a need to review the handling of prisoners’ post, in particular where healthcare appointments are concerned.

The outdoor area is now firmly established as a valuable part of the Hollesley Bay visitor experience. Will the need for additional seating be considered?