Written evidence submitted by Dr Nasrul Ismail (PEC0003)

Executive Summary

This written evidence responds to the Prison Estate Capacity Inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. This response highlights the following priorities:

• The government must reduce its reliance on prisons as the primary means of punishment. Short-term measures, such as Operation Safeguard and new prison construction, are both financially unsustainable and ineffective approaches to alleviating the overcrowding issue that has persisted for over three decades. Instead, the government should prioritise alternatives to incarceration to reduce dependence on prisons as a default solution. This shift would also ensure compliance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Discussions about prison overcrowding must address the continual recruitment and retention challenges faced by prison officers. These shortages stem from austerity-driven workforce reductions in 2012 and continue to undermine prison safety and operations. Despite a 2% improvement in recruitment reported by HMPPS, over 3,000 officers had left the service by late 2024, with 34% departing within their first year. The current prisoner-to-officer ratio of 4:1 is double the European average – strain likely to worsen due to increased policing and stricter sentencing policies.
• The government must acknowledge the detrimental effects of overcrowding on prisoner rehabilitation and institutional safety. Overcrowding restricts the availability of and access to essential services, such as education, training, and healthcare. The reoffending rate is already high (25%) and access to these services is vital to reduce reoffending. Overcrowded conditions have also resulted in harmful prison environment, manifest in a 67% increase in self-harm incidents, a 36% rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and a 65% increase in assaults on staff over the past decade. Legal precedents, including Yarashonen v. Turkey, further highlight the risks of reputational damage and potential litigation for the UK.
• Discussions on overcrowding must also account for restrictive sentencing practices and an underfunded probation system. Current sentencing guidelines often compel judges to impose custodial sentences, even when alternatives may be more appropriate. Moreover, the probation system, weakened by austerity, lacks the capacity to support large-scale prisoner releases, exacerbating strain on prisons. Evidence from the United States demonstrates the unsustainability of mass incarceration.

Inquiry responses

The primary objectives of this inquiry are to investigate prison capacity and establish a sustainable, forward-looking strategy for managing the prison estate. With these goals in mind, I encourage the Public Accounts Committee to address the following key issues in their inquiry:

1. Reduce reliance on prisons as a means of punishment
1. Prison overcrowding has been a persistent issue in England since the 1990s, consistently highlighted by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).
2. Widespread criticism of the UK Government’s continued over-reliance on incarceration emerged in my recent scholarship on the effectiveness of the COVID-19 mitigation efforts in prisons (cited below). While other nations, including authoritarian regimes like China and Iran, implemented measures to reduce imprisonment rates during the pandemic, the UK government released only 275 out of 4,000 prisoners eligible for early release (a mere 7%). The government chose instead to focus on containment strategies such as compartmentalisation and container units. Many participants in the study believed these decisions prioritised political optics over public health and the welfare of prisoners and staff.
3. The post-pandemic reopening of the criminal justice system saw a surge in new incarcerations, further exacerbated by events like the summer 2024 far-right riots. Temporary measures such as Operation Safeguard and Rapid Deployment Cells may address short-term capacity issues but are not sustainable solutions. Similarly, building more prisons is financially prohibitive and does not guarantee a reduction in overcrowding.
4. Precedents such as Orchowski v. Poland underscore the state's obligation to actively reduce incarceration rates and implement alternative punitive measures to comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government must now urgently embrace alternatives to imprisonment to address overcrowding.

2. Recruitment and retention challenges for frontline prison officers

1. Addressing prison overcrowding requires the Government to acknowledge and resolve the ongoing recruitment and retention challenges faced by frontline prison officers – an essential prison-management workforce. These issues have persisted since the implementation of austerity-driven programmes like the Prison Unit Cost Programme (Benchmarking Programme) and the Fair and Sustainable Programme in 2012, which reduced workforce size without addressing prison populations. The resulting strain has undermined operational safety – a problem that persists today.
2. Recent data from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) indicates a 2% improvement in recruitment for Bands 3–5 prison officers.[1] However, 3,149 officers left the service by the end of September 2024, with 34% (1,064) leaving within their first year.[2] The current prisoner-to-prison-officer ratio of 4:1 is double the European average, and the strain is expected to worsen with increased police resourcing, extended stop-and-search powers, tougher sentencing under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and a new wave of prisoners from the recent UK far-right riots in the summer 2024.

3. The impact of overcrowding on rehabilitation and safety
1. Overcrowding, compounded by prison officers’ recruitment and retention issues, limits prisoners' access to essential services such as education, employment, training and healthcare. This hinders progression through the prison system, with adverse implications for rehabilitation. The high reoffending rate of 25% contradicts the rehabilitative intent of imprisonment.[3]
2. Overcrowding also creates harmful living conditions, including prolonged confinement in overcrowded cells, which fosters boredom, frustration, and unrest. Overcrowded conditions partly explain the 67% increase in self-harm incidents, the 36% rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and the 65% spike in assaults on staff between 2014 and 2024.[4]
3. Legal precedents such as Yarashonen v. Turkey and Alimov v. Turkey highlight the risks of inhuman and degrading treatment in overcrowded facilities – rulings which could have reputational consequences for the UK. In 2023, a German court rejected a UK extradition request due to chronic overcrowding and violence in British prisons.
4. Outbreaks of infectious diseases in overcrowded facilities pose public health risks, as evidenced by the 2021 COVID-19 outbreak at HMP Sudbury, which spilled into the surrounding community. Such conditions also heighten risks for prison staff, leading to psychological distress and a hostile working environment that further undermines retention.
4. The criminal justice system and financial sustainability
1. Reducing prison overcrowding requires a systemic overhaul of sentencing guidelines. Sentencers participating in my ESRC-funded study (cited below) expressed frustration over restrictive sentencing rules that compel them to impose custodial sentences, even when alternatives are more appropriate. Additionally, the continued imprisonment of approximately 3,000 individuals under the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) scheme necessitates urgent review.
2. The impoverished probation system further exacerbates this issue. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the system’s inability to handle large-scale early releases, demonstrating the need for increased investment in probation-supportive resources to reduce reliance on incarceration.
3. A whole-scale assessment of the financial sustainability of prisons is also overdue. Lessons from countries like the United States demonstrate that mass incarceration drives up taxes, which is deeply unpopular. Rather than expanding the prison estate, the UK Government should prioritise financial sustainability by promoting alternatives to imprisonment as a sentencing approach.
5. Recommendations

Based on these findings, I propose the following solutions:

1. Use alternative community sanctions for non-violent offenders and divert individuals with acute mental health or substance-use issues to treatment facilities.
2. Abolish short prison sentences, as has been practiced in France and Norway, and empower judges to use suspended sentences – both of which are proportionate and financially sustainable practices.
3. Enhance community resources dedicated to building judicial confidence in alternative sentences, ensuring community members understand the viability and effectiveness of the practice.
4. Increase funding for early intervention and mentoring programmes in underserved communities to reduce entry into the criminal justice system and alleviate pressure on prisons.

By implementing these strategies, the Government can alleviate overcrowding, improve safety and rehabilitation outcomes, and ensure a more sustainable and just criminal justice system.

I would be delighted to deliver a presentation or further discuss any aspects of this submission with the committee.

The findings presented in this response are derived from two of my research projects:

1. The English Prison Health System After a Decade of Austerity

This three-year interdisciplinary study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), culminated in a monograph published by Routledge. The project employed semi-structured interviews with 87 participants, including policymakers from key organisations involved in international prison work, national policymakers and prison reform advocates, prison governors and officers across high-, medium-, and low-security and resettlement prisons, and representatives from the voluntary and private sectors. The monograph has been shortlisted for the Social Policy Association’s Richard Titmuss Award, the British Academy’s Peter Townsend Award, and the British Society of Criminology’s book award for its contributions to social policy and criminology. A copy is available upon request.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the UK Government’s COVID-19 Mitigation Efforts in English Prisons

Funded by the University of Bristol, this recently completed study examines the UK Government’s response to COVID-19 in English prisons. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews with 44 participants, including policymakers from key organisations engaged in international prison work, national policymakers and prison reform advocates. The findings are currently being prepared for publication.

Biographical Information

Dr Nasrul Ismail is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol. His research centres on the governance and delivery of prison health, with a focus on the intersections of criminology, social policy, and public health. His acclaimed monograph, The English Prison Health System After a Decade of Austerity (2023), has been shortlisted for prestigious awards, including the Social Policy Association’s Richard Titmuss Award, the British Academy’s Peter Townsend Award, and the British Society of Criminology’s Book Prize, underscoring its impact on advancing both social policy and criminology.

Dr Ismail’s research has significantly influenced key organisations such as the World Health Organization, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, and the UK’s House of Commons Justice Committee. His insights have also shaped the work of the National Audit Office, the Howard League for Penal Reform, and Prison Reform International. Beyond academia, his work has been featured in prominent media outlets including Byline Times, The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, and Al Jazeera. He is the principal investigator of a British Academy–funded project evaluating the preparedness of Southeast Asian prisons for future pandemics.

In addition to his role at the University of Bristol, Dr Ismail serves as a visiting professor at Monash University in Malaysia and Chulalongkorn University in Thailand. He is serving as a co-editor for the journal Justice, Power, and Resistance (published by Bristol University Press) and as an academic editor for PLOS ONE, a leading peer-reviewed, open-access health journal.

Dr Ismail is also the co-leader of the Social Harm Policy Group for the Social Policy Association. This multidisciplinary group, comprising 12 members from six esteemed institutions—Bristol, Durham, York, Birmingham, Oxford, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—advances understanding of social harm in contemporary society and promotes collaborative research with meaningful impact beyond academia.

December 2024